A Primer on Employer's Duty to Accommodate Employees Injured in the Workplace
Are employers required to provide light-duty work for an injured employee? Must they keep an injured employee's job open for more than 12 weeks? Can they retaliate against an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim?
November 06, 2017 at 12:22 PM
8 minute read
Bill Malarkey works as a driver for United Transportation Service (UTS). His duties include pickup and delivery of packages. While delivering a package to Google's headquarters, Bill slipped and fell, herniating the L4 and L5 discs in his lower back. Bill has retained you to bring a claim against Google and also to file a workers' compensation claim on Bill's behalf.
As a result of the accident, his doctor told Bill that, for the next six months, he should not lift more than 20 pounds. After six months, the doctor intends to reevaluate Bill to determine if his condition has improved. UTS's written job description for the driver position states that drivers must be able to lift parcels weighing up to 70 pounds. Bill has acknowledged to you that this is in fact an essential requirement of his position. UTS has told Bill that he may not return to work while under a lifting restriction.
UTS has further stated that Bill may take up to 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). However, UTS has further stated that, at the conclusion of 12 weeks, he must return to work without restrictions, failing which it will terminate his employment. Bill tells you that UTS routinely permits drivers to take longer medical leaves and that he believes the company is angry that he filed a workers' compensation claim.
Bill asks you what his rights are. Specifically, he wants to know if UTS is required to provide him with light-duty work; if it must keep his job open for greater than 12 weeks; and if it can retaliate against him for filing a workers' compensation claim.
Background on the NJLAD
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits disability discrimination in employment. New Jersey enacted the LAD to further the state's public policy “to eradicate invidious discrimination from the workplace.” Carmona v. Resorts Int'l Hotel, 189 N.J. 354, 363 (2007). The NJLAD defines disability broadly to include any “physical disability [or] infirmity … which is caused by bodily injury … or illness.” N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(q).
Although the NJLAD does not explicitly address reasonable accommodation, New Jersey courts have uniformly held that the law requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees' disabilities. In addition, Department of Law and Public Safety regulations require employers to “make a reasonable accommodation to the limitations of an employee or applicant who is a person with a disability, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business.” N.J.A.C. §13:13-2.5(b). Examples of a reasonable accommodation may include job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules and/or leaves of absence. These regulations further provide that “[a]n employer shall consider the possibility of reasonable accommodation before firing, demoting or refusing to hire or promote a person with a disability on the grounds that his or her disability precludes job performance.” Id. (b)(2).
“To determine what appropriate accommodation is necessary, the employer must initiate an informal interactive process with the employee.” Tynan v. Vicinage 13, 351 N.J. Super. 385, 400 (App. Div. 2002) (citing 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(0)(3)). “Once the [employer] kn[o]w[s] of the handicap and [the employee]'s desire for assistance, the burden [i]s on the [employer] to implement the interactive process.” Id. at 402 (citing Taylor v. Phoenixville School District, 184 F.3d 296, 315 (1999)).
Duty to Provide Light-Duty Work
Although an employer may not discriminate against a disabled individual, an exception is where “the nature and extent of the disability reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment.” N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1. In addition, employers are not required “to create a permanent part-time position for a disabled employee if no suitable full-time position exists … [or to] create a permanent light-duty position to replace a medium-duty one.” Muller v. Exxon Research and Eng'g Co., 345 N.J. Super. 595, 608 (App. Div. 2001), certif. denied, 172 N.J. 355 (2002).
In Raspa v. Office of Sheriff of County of Gloucester, 191 N.J. 323 (2007), the plaintiff was a corrections officer who, after 13 years of employment, was diagnosed with a hyperactive thyroid. His treating physician provided the plaintiff with a note requesting that he not supervise inmates. Although his employer initially placed the plaintiff on “restricted duty status” and assigned him to a series of light-duty positions, it eventually determined that these limitations prevented the plaintiff from performing the essential functions of the corrections officer position. Accordingly, defendant filed an involuntary application for disability retirement on plaintiff's behalf. In response, plaintiff filed suit and alleged that the defendant had violated the LAD by failing to reasonably accommodate his disability.
Although the jury had found in favor of the plaintiff and the Appellate Division had affirmed, the Supreme Court reversed and directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of defendant. In so holding, the Supreme Court held that “an employee must possess the bona fide occupational qualifications for the job position that employee seeks to occupy in order to trigger an employer's obligation to reasonably accommodate the employee to the extent required by the LAD.” The court further held that “an employer may reasonably limit light-duty assignments to those employees whose disabilities are temporary,” and that “the availability of light-duty assignments for temporarily disabled employees does not give rise to any additional duty on the part of the employer to assign a permanently disabled employee indefinitely to an otherwise restricted light-duty assignment.”
In Bill's case, UTS has a strong argument that the ability to lift parcels weighing up to 70 pounds is an essential function of the position. Accordingly, if Bill is permanently restricted from lifting more than 20 pounds, he would appear to be unable to satisfy the positon's qualifications.
As to whether UTS is temporarily required to provide Bill with light-duty work, this inquiry would depend on whether such an “accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business.” N.J.A.C. §13:13-2.5 (b). Clearly, one issue would be whether UTS had provided other employees with such an accommodation. In addition, other important factors would include the total number of UTS employees and facilities; the size of UTS's budget; the nature and cost of the requested accommodation; and the extent to which it “would involve waiver of an essential requirement of a job as opposed to a tangential or non-business necessity requirement.”
Requirement that Medical Leave Be Extended Beyond 12 Weeks
New Jersey Courts have recognized that temporary leaves of absence — even those of a long duration — may constitute a reasonable accommodation under the NJLAD. For example, where the defendant terminated the plaintiff after an 11-month leave, the Appellate Division held that a factual dispute existed as to whether it reasonably accommodated her disability. Tynan, 353 N.J. Super. at 389-90. See also Soules v. Mt. Holiness Memorial Park, 354 N.J. Super. 569, 573 (App. Div. 2002) (holding that it was a jury question as to whether an eight-month recuperative leave of absence was a reasonable accommodation).
In light of the above, UTS's blanket statement that Bill must return to work after 12 weeks without restrictions would appear to be in violation of the NJLAD. Rather, UPS would have to demonstrate that extending Bill's leave beyond 12 weeks would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its business. Given that, according to Bill, UTS routinely permits drivers to take longer medical leaves, it would appear difficult for UTS to make this showing.
Retaliation for Filing a Workers' Comp Claim
New Jersey recognizes a common law cause of action for wrongful discharge based upon retaliation for the filing of a workers' compensation claim. This claim requires plaintiff to demonstrate “'(1) that he made or attempted to make a claim for workers' compensation; and (2) that he was discharged in retaliation for making that claim.'” Cerracchio v. Alden Leeds, 223 N.J. Super. 435, 442-43 (App. Div. 1988) (quoting Galante v. Sandoz, 192 N.J. Super. 403, 407 (Law Div. 1983), aff'd, 196 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 1984)).
If Bill can demonstrate that UTS is in fact retaliating against him for filing a workers' compensation claim, he will be able to assert a claim against the company pursuant to the above precedent.
Moskowitz is of counsel with Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins in Springfield. He focuses his employment law practice on disability, discrimination, harassment and whistleblower claims, as well as cases involving the Family and Medical Leave Act.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFalling Back in Love With Certain Estate Planning Strategies in a Falling Interest Rate Environment
9 minute readThe Crucial Role Parenting Coordinators Play in Helping Former Spouses Co-Parent Effectively
Three's Company: Can a Nonsignatory to an Arbitration Agreement Compel or Be Compelled to Arbitrate?
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250