Search form

Nurse’s Disability Discrimination Claims May Proceed to Trial, New Jersey Supreme Court Rules

By Brett M. Anders and R. Shane Kagan
  • July 14, 2017

A registered nurse employed by a New Jersey health care system for approximately 10 years may proceed to a jury trial with her disability and perceived disability claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the Supreme Court of New Jersey has ruled. Grande v. Saint Clare’s Health Sys., 2017 N.J. LEXIS 746 (July 12, 2017). Summary judgment is not appropriate in this case because significant questions of fact exist, the Court found.

Background

Maryanne Grande, a registered nurse since 1985, was employed by Saint Clare’s Health System from 2000 to 2010, when she was terminated.

For most of her employment at Saint Clare’s, she was assigned to care for patients recovering from strokes and who may not have been able move on their own. The hospital contended that one of Grande’s essential job functions included “frequently” lifting 50 pounds from waist to chest.

Beginning in 2007 and continuing through her termination, Grande suffered a series of job-related injuries from repositioning patients. The injuries caused her to take time off (totaling more than 12 months over the three-year period) to recuperate. She also worked on light duty only for approximately two months.

Following Grande’s last injury, her doctor cleared her to resume to work without restrictions. The hospital, however, required her to undergo a functional capacity examination (“FCE”) before returning to work.

The FCE determined that Grande had permanent lifting restrictions and could not transfer patients without assistance. At the time, Grande’s physician concurred with the FCE findings. As a result, the hospital terminated Grande’s employment because her physical limitations would prevent her from performing the essential functions of her job.

About one month after her termination, Grande was cleared by her doctor to return to work without restrictions. The hospital, however, did not rehire her. Grande filed suit against Saint Clare’s for unlawful discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination.

In 2013, the trial court granted Saint Clare’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Grande’s suit. It found that Grande “failed to articulate whether she was performing (or was able to perform) her job at a level that met the employer’s legitimate expectations.”

A divided Appellate Division (2-1), in 2015, reversed the dismissal of Grande’s case, ruling that genuine issues of material fact required a jury trial.

Supreme Court Ruling

The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the majority Appellate Division ruling. The Court held that “[a]n issue of fact exists as to whether [the plaintiff’s] periods of absence from work were sufficiently ‘chronic and excessive’ to preclude her from demonstrating that she was actually performing the job from which she was terminated.”

The Court also concluded that there were disputes as to whether the lifting standards identified in the FCE actually were the standards applicable to her position, and whether the report established that she could not perform her job either with or without an accommodation. Indeed, the Court noted that the record was not developed as to whether a reasonable accommodation would have permitted Grande to perform the essential functions of her job.

The Court also noted the hospital failed to provide objective evidence Grande was unable to perform her job without posing a risk of harm to herself or others. It held that an employer relying upon this defense must show it based its decision on “factual or scientifically validated evidence.” Here, the Court found Grande’s three prior injuries, which resulted in her missing more than 12 months of work, were insufficient to support the defense. The FCE, the Court observed, was silent as to whether Grande was at risk of injuring herself or others if she continued to perform her job, and the hospital failed to present any expert testimony on the issue.

Lessons

Grande offers important lessons for employers. First, employers should ensure that the essential job duties listed on a job description accurately reflect the duties actually performed by employees in the position.

Second, before terminating an employee you believe is at risk for injuring himself or others, make sure the decision is based on an objective standard and supported by factual or scientifically validated evidence. Employers should consider consulting with experienced employment counsel before terminating an employee who might be considered disabled.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss this case and your specific organizational needs.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

March 14, 2019

New Jersey Expands State Leave Laws

March 14, 2019

New Jersey has enacted an omnibus law that expands significantly protections and benefits for employees under the state’s laws providing unpaid family leave, domestic or sexual violence safety leave, and temporary paid family leave insurance. Prior to the law’s passage, the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) required employers with... Read More

February 28, 2019

Portland, Oregon, Bars Discrimination Against Atheists, Agnostics

February 28, 2019

An amendment to the civil rights code of Portland, Oregon, extends protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations to atheists, agnostics, and other “non-believers.” Religious facilities are expressly exempt. The Portland City Code, chapter 23.01, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of... Read More

February 27, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) Is Not Subject to Equitable Tolling

February 27, 2019

In a decision important to class action practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019... Read More