The Intersection of Workers’ Comp and the Law Against Discrimination in New Jersey

The New Jersey Supreme Court made two important rulings in Richter v. Oakland Board of Education, 246 N.J. 507 (2021). First, the Court decided that an employee doesn’t need to prove an adverse employment action as part of a failure-to-accommodate claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). This decision was based on previous case law, especially in retaliation claims, and was not surprising considering the NJLAD’s broad purpose of remedying discrimination.

The second ruling, however, is much more significant and far-reaching. The Court determined the exclusivities remedy provision of the New Jersey Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA) (N.J.S.A. 34 § 15-1, et seq.), also known as the “workers’ compensation bar,” doesn’t prevent an employee from seeking compensation for physical injuries through a claim under the NJLAD.

Moreover, there is no need for the employee to prove an intentional wrong, which is typically required to seek compensation for physical workplace injuries outside of the workers’ compensation system.

Here Are the Facts

Mary Richter, a science teacher in the Oakland school district, had been a type-1 diabetic for years. In the 2012-2013 school year, the administration scheduled her lunch period for 1:05 p.m. This worried her because waiting until then to eat could negatively affect her blood sugar levels. She asked her principal multiple times to change her lunch to an earlier time at 11:31 a.m. The principal promised to check into it, but during the first marking period, he didn’t make any changes. Therefore, she had to rely on glucose tablets to stabilize her blood sugar.

In the second marking period, she finally received the early lunch schedule she had requested earlier. However, the administration switched back her lunch period to 1:05 p.m. for the third marking period. Despite her repeated requests for a change, the principal acknowledged the mistake but didn’t alter her schedule. The principal suggested ways to manage her blood sugar while keeping the late lunch, but he refused to put them in writing when she asked.

On March 5, 2013, during the end of sixth period, she experienced a hypoglycemic event in front of her students. She had a seizure, lost consciousness, and hit her head on a lab table and the floor. The fall caused serious injuries.

Ms. Richter filed a Claim Petition to receive workers’ compensation benefits, and she was eventually granted 33 1/3% partial permanent disability, totaling $77,200.00.

She also sued the school board and the principal individually under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), claiming that the school failed to accommodate her. That failure led to the injuries she suffered in her fall.

By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, there were two issues the Court had to decide:

1. Whether a failure to accommodate claim requires an adverse employment action (such as a firing or change of assignment); and
2. Whether the exclusive remedy doctrine of the WCA barred Ms. Richter’s claim under the LAD.

The Court answered “no” on both those questions.

As to No. 1, the Court ruled that in a failure to accommodate claim under the LAD, a plaintiff doesn’t need to show an adverse employment consequence as part of their initial action. The Court acknowledged that the purpose of the LAD is to eliminate discrimination and create a welcoming workplace for people with disabilities.

Therefore, the Court decided that when an employer fails to act, remains silent, or inadequately responds to a reasonable accommodation request, it can be considered an omission that gives the plaintiff a valid cause of action.

Regarding No.2, the Court considered the legislature’s intent in passing the LAD, which was to supplement common law and provide remedies for employees who experienced unlawful discrimination. If the WCA’s exclusivity provision were to block accommodation claims for Ms. Richter and others in similar situations, it would contradict the legislature’s purpose. As a result, the Court concluded that Ms. Richter may pursue her LAD claims.

The Court also addressed the concern of a double recovery from Ms. Richter’s LAD claim and her WCA award. The Court referenced the WCA provisions that allow compensation benefits paid and protection against third-party recoveries. To prevent a double recovery, the Court rejected a 100% dollar-for-dollar credit request but applied NJSA 34:15-40, which permits a credit.

Richter marks a major change in the law regarding workplace injuries and could potentially open up new avenues for seeking damages in certain situations. Now, employees may file LAD claims for failure to accommodate where the employer has merely failed to act. It is not necessary for an employer to affirmatively take a negative action against the employee. A simple inaction, as in Richter, may now be sufficient.

The decision further expands employer liability by holding that the exclusive remedy provision of the WCA does not bar such a claim.

Experienced New Jersey Lawyers

Schiller, Pittenger, & Gaffney, P.C., is in Scotch Plains, NJ. The firm handles matters involving auto dealers, business transactions, residential and commercial real estate, estates and trusts, personal injury and general civil litigation. We practice in the federal and state courts throughout New Jersey. If you need an experienced New Jersey attorney to help you with a legal issue, or you need legal advice, call us at 908-490-0444.