disability discrimination lawyer

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.

Student Kicked Off Volleyball Team for Having Epilepsy — What Disability Discrimination Looks Like in Schools

November 18, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Disability discrimination remains a persistent problem in the workplace. But it does not happen only at work. Last month, a Norwood, New Jersey teenager was cut from her school’s volleyball team because she has epilepsy. After her father reported what he believed to be discriminatory conduct and demanded that the school adhere to her rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, she was permitted back on the team. Once she was playing again, however, she was subjected to bullying and harassment from her teammates that lasted the entire school year according to the Complaint filed by her father on October 1, 2020.

Norwood is a small K-8 district where the minor plaintiff (referred to by her initials, EP) received special education and related services due to several disabilities including social anxiety and epilepsy. In addition to being a special education student at Norwood public school, EP was also a member of the volleyball team. Along with her teammates, she tried out for and made the team in her 6^thand 7^thgrade years. When she tried out in her 8^thgrade year, she was shocked when she found out that she was the only 8^thgrade student who did not make it. When her father addressed his daughter’s removal from the volleyball team with school administrators, EP was allowed back on the team, but was subject to bullying by her teammates for the rest of the school year.

The family filed a Complaint in the New Jersey Superior Court for Bergen County against the Norwood Board of Education and Vito DeLaura, the principal of Norwood public school, alleging violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act. In the lawsuit, the family alleges that Mr. DeLaura, who they claim has a history of singling out and humiliating EP due to her disabilities, instructed the volleyball coach not to let EP play. Specifically, the lawsuit claims the volleyball coach cut EP from the team because her epilepsy required the school to hire a nurse who would be present at all games and practices, creating a significant financial burden on the school district. The family claims that the subsequent bullying was due to EP’s disabilities and was not addressed properly by the school.

New Jersey Appellate Court Affirms Medical Leave Reasonable Accommodation Verdict

May 5, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), an employee is entitled to reasonable accommodations at his or her workplace when he or she has a disability and the accommodation allows him or her to carry out basic job functions. But what if the employee requires medical leave to seek treatment for the disability? How long can the requested leave be? What if the employee’s time off under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has already been exhausted or is unavailable? And how can the employee prove that he or she would still be able to perform basic job functions if the accommodation is provided?

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey answered these questions in a recent decision in the case of Pritchett v. New Jersey, when it held that leaves of absence are available accommodations under the LAD. In upholding the reasonableness of a request for a 4month extension of a medical leave, the Court determined that even unpaid leave that exceeds FMLA entitlements can be considered a reasonable accommodation, and should be assessed on a case by case basis. Additionally, the Court found that the LAD does not require expert testimony as to the individual employee’s ability to return to work. Such testimony need only attest to the fact that someone with the same disability could potentially function in the workplace.

In 2006, Shelley Pritchett was hired as a corrections officer at the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC), and within a year, she was promoted to senior corrections officer. As a routine part of her job, Pritchett escorted inmates through and around the prison, responded to codes, and intervened to end physical fights between inmates when necessary. On June 8, 2011, Pritchett broke up a fight among several inmates and injured her neck, back and knee. Due to her injuries, Pritchett took medical leave pursuant to the FMLA until September 21, 2011, exhausting all of her available FMLA leave.

NJ Court Finds Ocean Township Police Department’s Pregnancy Leave Policy Unlawful

January 7, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division has ruled that an employer’s pregnancy leave policy that requires pregnant employees to exhaust their accrued paid sick and vacation time to be in violation the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. In finding for the employee in the reported decision of the the entitled Delanoy v. Township of Ocean, the analyzed the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, an amendment to the Law Against Discrimination dating back to January 17, 2014, which specifically made pregnancy a protected class under the state anti-discrimination law. The court’s decision is being viewed as a significant legal victory of New Jersey pregnant worker’s rights.

The appeal arose from a suit brought by an Ocean Township police officer, alleging pregnancy-based discrimination in connection with her request for an accommodation related to her pregnancy. Specifically, she claimed that the Township’s policy regarding pregnant workers is discriminatory on its face and that the requirement that she exchange her accrued PTO as a condition of her accommodation amounted to an unlawful penalty.When Plaintiff became pregnant, she submitted a doctor’s note to the Township advising them of her pregnancy and her need to be transferred to a light-duty position. Plaintiff sought the transfer from September 22, 2014 through the end of her pregnancy, in March 2015.

On or about September 22, 2014, Plaintiff was provided an administrative position in the Township’s Department of Records, and was further assigned to receiving walk-in complaints at the police station. In her role as the walk-in officer, Plaintiff did not feel comfortable as her pregnancy precluded the use of her firearm and the position had dangerous propensities. Nevertheless, she performed her duties as instructed. Despite her ability to work and prior to her expected due date, around February 25, 2015, the Township forced Plaintiff to take her pregnancy leave early and begin using her PTO. In total, Plaintiff was required to deplete 2 weeks of PTO.