All Employers Required to Provide New Jersey Disabled Employees With Reasonable Accommodations So They Can Do Their Job

New Jersey’s Requirement for Employers to Provide Reasonable Accommodations for Disabled Employees

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination because of an employee’s disability.  New Jersey civil service law also prohibits discrimination because of an employee’s disability.  These laws require employers to provide reasonable accommodations so that disabled employees can perform their duties.

The regulations promulgated by the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights implementing the Law Against Discrimination’s reasonable accommodation requirement require employers to engage in an “interactive process” with the employee to determine what reasonable accommodations the employer can provide for the employee.

An appeals court examined this requirement in the context of a New Jersey municipal civil service employee in the case of In the Matter of George Meadows, Paterson Department of Economic Development.

 

The Meadows Case

George Meadows began working as a civil service employee for the City of Paterson in the  Department of Economic Development beginning in 2012 in the position of principal planner.  His duties included reviewing applications, plans, the City’s master plan, ordinances, and other land development projects.  He had no negative reviews.

Beginning in 2015, he began to suffer visual impairment.  In 2018 he had eye surgery for glaucoma and thereafter continued to have visual impairment.  Paterson sent Meadows for a fitness-for-duty examination, which determined he needed the accommodation of assistance for typing and reading but could not determine how long his visual impairment would continue.  Paterson administratively suspended Meadows and sent him for a second fitness-for-duty exam with a different doctor who wrote a nine sentence opinion finding that Meadows was “unemployable” because he was “statutor[ily] blind.”  Meadows’s treating doctor wrote a report stating that although Meadows had reading, writing, transportation and clerical limitations, he could still work.

The City ultimately terminated Meadows for inability to perform his job.  He appealed to the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, which transferred the matter to the Office of Administrative Law, where an administrative law judge held a hearing and issued a recommended decision that Meadows should be reemployed because even though he might have been “legally blind,” the City had not met its burden to prove that Meadows could not perform his job duties.  The New Jersey Civil Service Commission adopted the recommended decision and ordered Meadows reinstated to his position with back pay, benefits and seniority.

Paterson appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Paterson argued it was not required to provide Meadow with an accommodation, apparently because his impaired vision made him “legally blind.”  It relied on the nine sentence report of the second examining doctor.  The Appellate Division rejected the City’s arguments.

First, it rejected the doctor’s report as “net opinion” because it failed to give a sufficient basis for its opinion.  Second, and more importantly, Paterson was required to show that Meadows could not perform his duties with “reasonable accommodation” after engaging in an “interactive process” with him to determine what reasonable accommodations would allow Meadows to perform his duties.  The court explained that the burden to provide reasonable accommodations always rests with the employer, and only if the employer can show that there are no possible reasonable accommodations which would allow the employee to perform his duties would terminating the employee be justified.  Also, the employer must engage in an interactive process with the employee to figure this out.  Paterson didn’t do that, so it failed to prove both that it engaged in the interactive process, and that the accommodations which Meadows’ doctors recommended would be neither possible, reasonable nor would they allow him to perform his functions.

The Appellate Division therefore affirmed the New Jersey Civil Service Commission’s decision to reinstate Meadows to his position with back pay and seniority.

 

The Takeaways

The Meadows case demonstrates that all employers, both public and private, are bound by the requirements of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination’s requirement to reasonably accommodate employees with disabilities, and to engage in the interactive process to find those accommodations.  Had this matter been litigated in the Superior Court rather than the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, the result could have been considerably higher damages, since the Superior Court can award punitive damages and reimbursement of the employee’s attorneys fees if certain requirements are met.

 

Questions About Disability Discrimination

If you have any questions about disability discrimination or disability discrimination litigation, please call us at (973) 890-0004 or fill out the contact form on this page to schedule a consultation with one of our New Jersey employment attorneys.  We can help.