join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 3

New Jersey Appellate Division Clarifies When Employers Can Require Employee Psych Examinations

The circumstances under which a company or organization may require an employee to undergo a medical examination can be confusing for employers, and for good reason: The “rules” are cobbled together from a variety of sources and are from the model of clarity. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey recently attempted to synthesize and clarify these rules in the case of In re Williams, a decision whose importance will likely increase as disability and reasonable accommodation issues continue to be fertile ground for plaintiffs’ attorneys. 2016 N.J. Super. LEXIS 15 (App.Div. Jan. 25, 2016)

NJ Law against Discrimination Claim Fails Where Plaintiff Was Not “Otherwise Qualified” to Perform the Essential Functions of Her Job.

A federal district court in New Jersey recently granted summary judgment on a plaintiff’s disability claim brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), where the plaintiff’s physician stated “not only could [she] not work at her job … she couldn’t be with people.

N.J. Supreme Court Clarifies Employer's Obligation to Offer Light Duty as a Reasonable Accommodation.

Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its most definitive decision to date on the issue of reasonable accommodation of disabled employees under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). In Raspa v. Office of the Sheriff of the County of Gloucester, A-53-06 (June 12, 2007), the Court held that: (1) if the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the position he seeks or holds, the employer may lawfully terminate his employment; (2) the employer is not obligated to create a new position for an employee as a reasonable accommodation, nor to maintain an employee on permanent light duty; and (3) even where an employer has allowed an employee to be on light duty for an extended period of time, such action does not create an obligation to maintain the light duty assignment indefinitely.