Potente v. County of Hudson
18 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 11, 900 A.2d 787, 187 N.J. 103 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A material factual dispute regarding an employer's willingness to accommodate an employee's disability or the employee's cooperation precludes a directed verdict on liability for failure to accommodate under the LAD. Pre-judgment interest is an available remedy for prevailing plaintiffs, including against public entities, under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
Facts:
- In 1982, Joseph Potente was hired as an investigator by the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office.
- In December 1993, Potente was injured in an automobile accident while on duty.
- On May 4, 1994, Potente returned to work, initially assigned to the radio room and then transferred to the domestic violence section due to his inability to use a weapon.
- On September 20, 1994, Potente took sick leave to undergo shoulder surgery, with an expected recovery of six to eight weeks.
- By November 10, 1994, Potente had exhausted his accrued compensatory and sick time and subsequently applied for state disability benefits.
- On November 22, 1994, Potente sent a memo to his supervisor, James Hoppes, requesting a leave of absence, which was denied on November 29 for being 'unspecified,' with an instruction to report to work on November 30.
- On November 29, 1994, union representatives (Kevin Wilder and John Bigger) discussed with Potente's ultimate supervisor, Robert Martin, arranging a meeting for November 30 to discuss accommodations, which Bigger relayed to Potente, along with an offer to drive him to work (Potente denies any meeting was discussed or scheduled).
- Potente informed Bigger around 11:00 p.m. on November 29 that he would not attend the meeting, stating his counsel had advised against it.
- On December 7, 1994, Hoppes hand-delivered a letter to Potente informing him of his termination for being 'absent without leave or permission from November 18, 1994.'
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Potente filed a complaint in federal court against the County of Hudson, the Hudson County Prosecutor, and his supervisor, alleging causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, including claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
- The federal district court dismissed Potente's federal claims on the merits and refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.
- In December 1999, Potente filed a LAD complaint in New Jersey state court against the County of Hudson, the Hudson County Prosecutor, and Robert Martin.
- The case was tried in January and February 2003, during which Potente withdrew his claim against the Hudson County Prosecutor, and the claim against Martin was dismissed, leaving the County of Hudson as the sole defendant.
- At the conclusion of the defendant's case, the trial judge considered cross-motions for a directed verdict and granted Potente's motion for a directed verdict on liability based on failure to accommodate.
- The case was then submitted to a jury for a determination of damages, which awarded Potente $200,000 in back pay and $50,000 in pain and suffering.
- The trial judge also granted Potente attorney's fees, as well as pre-judgment interest totaling $67,340.26, and post-judgment interest.
- The County of Hudson (appellant) appealed the trial judge's decisions, and the Appellate Division (appellee) affirmed the grant of a directed verdict and the award of pre-judgment interest.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a material factual dispute regarding an employer's willingness to accommodate an employee's disability or the employee's cooperation preclude the grant of a directed verdict on liability for failure to accommodate under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD)? 2. Is pre-judgment interest an available remedy for prevailing plaintiffs against public entities under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Long
No, a material factual dispute regarding an employer's willingness to accommodate an employee's disability or the employee's cooperation precludes the grant of a directed verdict on liability for failure to accommodate under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The court found that the trial judge improvidently granted a directed verdict on liability because reasonable minds could differ regarding whether the County of Hudson (defendant) was willing to accommodate Potente and whether Potente refused to participate in the interactive accommodation process. Potente testified that no accommodation was offered, and he was told he must return to work at "100 percent or not at all." However, other witnesses (Martin, Hoppes, Wilder, and Bigger) provided evidence that the defendant wanted to accommodate Potente, that a meeting was scheduled for November 30, 1994, to discuss accommodations, and that Potente was encouraged to participate but refused on advice of counsel. The court noted that an employee cannot refuse to cooperate with an employer’s efforts to accommodate a disability and then claim failure to accommodate (citing Beck v. Univ. of Wis. Bd. of Regents). Therefore, it was the jury's role to determine the veracity of these conflicting accounts. Yes, pre-judgment interest is an available remedy for prevailing plaintiffs against public entities under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The court reasoned that the 1990 LAD amendments (N.J.S.A 10:5-3, 10:5-13) explicitly state that "all remedies available in common law tort actions shall be available to prevailing plaintiffs." In 1972, Rule 4:42-11(b) made pre-judgment interest an available remedy in common law tort actions, regardless of whether the claim was liquidated or unliquidated, to promote justice and encourage prompt settlements (citing Busik v. Levine). While Rule 4:42-11(b) contains an exception for public entities "where provided by statute," this exception refers to statutes like the Tort Claims Act (TCA), which prohibits pre-judgment interest against public entities for TCA claims (N.J.S.A 59:9-2(a)). However, the court affirmed that LAD claims are not subject to the strictures of the TCA and has previously allowed punitive damages against public entities under the LAD despite the TCA’s bar (citing Cavuoti v. N.J. Transit Corp.). Therefore, because the LAD itself does not prohibit pre-judgment interest against public entities, and the TCA's prohibition does not apply to LAD claims, such interest is available.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the procedural standards for disability discrimination claims under the LAD and the scope of remedies against public entities. By reversing the directed verdict, the Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of jury deliberation when material facts are in dispute regarding an employer’s good faith in attempting accommodation and an employee’s participation in the interactive process. This reinforces the interactive nature of the accommodation duty. Furthermore, the explicit affirmation of pre-judgment interest against public entities broadens the available remedies for discrimination victims, ensuring that public employers face the same financial incentives for prompt resolution and full accountability as private entities, thereby distinguishing LAD claims from the more restrictive provisions of the Tort Claims Act.
