4.22.2024
New Jersey employers should be aware that they must comply with the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), which requires that it is an employer’s duty to engage in an interactive process with an employee who needs accommodations because of a disability. Employers must provide accommodations for an employee who can perform the essential functions of a job with accommodations, unless there is no reasonable accommodation that will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the job (or it is an “undue hardship” on the employer).
A New Jersey Case
A recent New Jersey case has raised questions regarding the duty of an employer to accommodate an employee whose disability makes it difficult for the employee to interact with the public, when interacting with the public is an essential function of the employee’s job. Plaintiff John Casalnova filed suit against WaWa in the New Jersey Superior Court alleging that his employer failed to accommodate his Tourette syndrome (“TS”). TS is a condition of the nervous system that often results in an individual having motor or vocal tics, and making involuntary sounds or movements. Casalnova worked as a WaWa store manager with a six figure salary before he was diagnosed with TS. After he was diagnosed, he requested that WaWa accommodate any outburst resulting from his TS because it would be involuntary and caused by his disability, not an intentional violation of WaWa’s policies and procedures. WaWa denied this request.
Casalnova alleges he then requested to be accommodated by a transfer to a non-customer facing position. After denying all accommodation requests without engaging in the interactive process required by law, Casalnova alleges, WaWa then retaliated against him for making these requests, resulting in two demotions.
A Federal Court Decision
Cameron Cooper, a delivery merchandiser for Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. (“CCC”) who was diagnosed with TS, sued CCC for failure to accommodate him. A delivery merchandiser for CCC is responsible for merchandising, delivering, and the maintenance of “company standards” at company locations.
Cooper had a form of TS that caused him to involuntarily use inappropriate language, such racial slurs and profanity. The company received complaints from its customers and employees regarding Cooper’s language. Cooper proposed that CCC provide him with a non-customer facing route, and the company stated it did not have such a position. CCC proposed that Cooper take an available non-customer facing warehouse position. Cooper took the warehouse position, but sued the company under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) alleging failure to accommodate his disability.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided this case, examined whether “excellent customer service” was an essential function of the job of delivery merchandiser. The Court held that it was, relying on the words of the employer’s job description and Cooper’s admission. The Court then determined whether Cooper could provide excellent customer service with an accommodation. The Court ruled that he could not, because of his involuntary use of racist and profane words. The Sixth Circuit then dismissed Cooper’s claims ruling that he could not identify a reasonable accommodation to allow him to perform the essential job function of “excellent customer service.”
The Complaint in Caselnova does not mention that the employee had any episodes of outbursts involving curse words or racial slurs, which makes the New Jersey case different from the Sixth Circuit case. Employers will have to wait for the Court’s decision to determine whether that fact makes any difference regarding the duty to accommodate.
TAKEAWAY: Employers should ensure that they engage in an interactive dialogue with their employees who request accommodations for disabilities, and that their job descriptions specifically identify the essential functions of positions in case those functions are challenged. If you have questions on the employer duty to accommodate, or any federal or New Jersey employment law, contact Stephanie Gironda or any member of the Wilentz Employment Law Team.
Tags: Employment Law Update • Reasonable Accommodation in the Workplace • Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the time of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.
