Victor v. State
4 A.3d 126, 203 N.J. 383, 23 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1089 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot succeed on a failure to accommodate claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) if they fail to provide evidence of a disability at the time of the requested accommodation and if the requested accommodation itself is not reasonable.
Facts:
- Roy Victor, a New Jersey State Trooper, had a history of back injuries and stress-related disorders which led to long periods of medical leave or limited-duty status.
- On December 8, 2003, after successfully completing a functional capacity test and being medically cleared, Victor was returned to full-duty status.
- On December 11, 2003, Victor reported for his first full-duty shift and told his supervisor he had reinjured his back since being cleared for duty.
- Victor provided no medical documentation for this new injury and had not contacted any division medical personnel.
- He asked to perform administrative tasks in the station instead of his assigned road patrol, which would require wearing a protective vest.
- The Station Commander, Lt. Shakespeare, confirmed with the division doctor that Victor was medically cleared for full duty and ordered him to perform his road patrol duties.
- Victor put on his vest and performed road patrol for four hours before taking sick leave for the final two hours of his shift.
- Victor suffered no change in rank, pay, or benefits as a result of the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy Victor sued the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey State Police in state trial court for disability discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
- The trial court instructed the jury that an 'adverse employment action' was not a required element of a failure to accommodate claim.
- The jury found for Victor on his failure to accommodate claim and awarded him compensatory and punitive damages.
- The defendants' motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court, which held that a failure to accommodate is itself an adverse employment action.
- Defendants, the State of New Jersey, appealed to the Appellate Division, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision, holding that proof of an adverse employment action is a required element of a failure to accommodate claim, and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted plaintiff Roy Victor's petition for certification on the limited issue of whether an adverse employment action is a required element.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), can a plaintiff prevail on a failure to accommodate claim where he provides no medical evidence of his disability on the day in question and requests an accommodation that is not considered reasonable?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hoens
No, a plaintiff cannot prevail on a failure to accommodate claim under these circumstances. While the court explicitly refrains from deciding whether a failure to accommodate claim can exist without an adverse employment consequence, the plaintiff's claim here fails for two fundamental reasons. First, the plaintiff did not meet his prima facie burden of proving he was disabled on the specific day he requested accommodation; his subjective claim of a new back injury was unsupported by any medical evidence. Second, the plaintiff did not seek a reasonable accommodation; he demanded a particular assignment—administrative work—which is akin to demanding a new position, rather than utilizing the available accommodations like taking sick leave or seeing a division doctor. The duty to accommodate does not require an employer to acquiesce to an employee's preferred accommodation, especially when other reasonable options are available.
Analysis:
This case is significant because the New Jersey Supreme Court deliberately left unresolved the key question of whether a 'freestanding' failure to accommodate claim, without a resulting adverse employment action, is viable under the LAD. While acknowledging the LAD's broad remedial purpose might allow for such a claim in a future case with stronger facts, the court's decision here emphasizes the foundational requirements for any such claim. It serves as a crucial reminder to litigants that before a court will address novel legal theories, a plaintiff must first establish the basic elements of their case, namely, providing sufficient evidence of a qualifying disability and demonstrating that the accommodation sought was reasonable under the circumstances.
