disability attorney

New Jersey Grapples with the Appropriate Use of Sheltered Workshops for Disabled Workers

February 5, 2021 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Statistics show people with disabilities in the United States are twice as likely to be unemployed than those without a disability. The issue has been exacerbated during the coronavirus pandemic, which has caused joblessness to rise and an increase of workplace disability discrimination. But underlying the conversation about getting people with disabilities back to work is a controversial debate about where and what type of work people with disabilities should have access to and be provided reasonable accommodations.

In September 2020, Governor Murphy announced that a total of $1,312,500 of CARES Act funding will be used to reopen 26 sheltered workshop programs throughout New Jersey which have been closed for close to a year due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In making this announcement, supporters credited sheltered workshops with providing “a positive and valuable service for our developmentally disabled community”, and “a safe work environment that cultivates their skills and abilities”. However just 4 months later, in January 2021, some of those same supporters advanced the argument that our state government should be doing more to help individuals with disabilities find inclusive and competitive employment. So what is a sheltered workshop and how is it different from an inclusive and competitive workplace?

A sheltered workshop is an employer that is authorized under New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law to employ individuals with disabilities at a rate less than the minimum wage. Specifically, Subchapter 9 of the Wage and Hour Law, defines “individual with disability” as someone whose earning capacity is impaired by a physical or mental disability and “sheltered workshop” as a charitable organization focused on rehabilitation, employment or vocational training for individuals whose earning capacity is thus impaired. The law is based on the faulty logic that a person’s disability is the main factor impairing his or her earning potential, and not the law itself which explicitly degrades that potential. These sheltered workshops apply for permits with the Office of Wage and Hour Compliance which authorize them to employ individuals with disabilities at less than minimum wage. Only people with disabilities can be employed under these special permits, ensuring that all non-disabled employees are paid higher wages.

After Calabotta: Certain Out-of-State Employees Protected by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

July 2, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

In the recent case David F. Calabotta v. Phibro Animal Health Corp., et al., Smith Eibeler employment attorney Kathryn McClure, Esq., along with co-counsel, Mary Ann Sedey secured a substantial victory for employees, both inside and outside of New Jersey. Through its opinion, the Appellate Division reaffirmed New Jersey’s commitment to the eradication of workplace discrimination and the expansive reach of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

The case provides clarification to federal and state courts that it is inappropriate to impose a “bright-line rule” that the Law Against Discrimination only applies where an individual was employed within the State of New Jersey. Rather, a case-by-case analysis must be performed, with attention paid to the particular facts and circumstances at issue in each given case. Further, the Appellate Division again approved of a claim for associational discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination, despite the absence of explicit legislative approval of such a claim.

David Calabotta, the plaintiff in the Calabotta case, was not a member of a protected class himself, but rather brought a claim for associational discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination. David’s claim was premised on his relationship with his wife, who was diagnosed with breast cancer and thus was disabled within the meaning of the Law Against Discrimination. David brought his claim after his employer refused to consider him for a promotion and then subsequently terminated his employment after his wife became disabled. David alleged that his employer took those actions against him because of his association with his disabled wife.

New Jersey Law Protects Employee Who Failed Drug Test For Medical Marijuana

May 23, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination protects New Jersey employees from being fired for failing a drug test in connection with medical marijuana use. For employees who use medical marijuana, this provides some extra protections with respect to their employment. With approximately 45,000 registered patients in the medical marijuana program, and an additional 2,000 members joining every month, this decision has far-reaching implications as it will protect those with disabilities requiring use of medical marijuana.

The Appellate Division suggested that, to the extent the use of medical marijuana is limited to non-working hours, it does not translate that an employee is unable to perform their job duties and responsibilities. The Appellate Division’s decision was based upon a lawsuit filed by 41-year old Justin Wild, a cancer patient, who was fired from his employment at a funeral home as a result of his medical marijuana use during non-working hours.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers from discriminating against disabled employees. The New Jersey state discrimination law requires that employees provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees who need assistance in performing the essential functions of his or her job. When an employee provides sufficient notice to his or her employer that they need assistance as a result of a disability, the employer is obligated to work with the employee in an interactive process to determine whether the requested or other accommodation can provided to the employee. The employer must provide a reasonable accommodation, unless they can show that the accommodation would constitute an undue hardship on their business operations.