FRANCES GRAU VS. AHS HOSPITAL CORP.L-695-14, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3959-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 2, 2017Background
- Frances Grau worked 26 years as a nursing assistant at Morristown Medical Center; the job required frequent lifting (10–50 lbs) and occasional lifting up to 100 lbs, plus pushing/pulling patients and equipment.
- After a workplace fall, Grau had shoulder surgery and treating physicians restricted her to light duty (no lifting over five pounds; no pushing/pulling/overhead work).
- AHS placed Grau in temporary light-duty roles under its Return to Work program, trained her for administrative roles, extended the RTW period, and searched weekly for suitable vacancies; she struggled with computer-based training and could not complete some courses.
- Functional capacity testing and medical opinions confirmed Grau could not meet nursing assistant physical duties; no permanent light-duty or true "sitter" positions existed outside nursing assistant responsibilities.
- Grau retired, obtained SSD benefits, then sued under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) alleging AHS failed to reasonably accommodate her disability; the trial court granted summary judgment for AHS, finding Grau could not perform essential functions even with accommodation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grau was entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the LAD | Grau argues AHS failed to accommodate her disability and did not properly engage in the interactive process | AHS contends it provided temporary light duty, training, and active job searches but no position existed that Grau could perform given her restrictions | Court held Grau established disability but could not prove she could perform essential job functions with or without accommodation, so no liability under LAD |
| Whether AHS engaged in a good-faith interactive process | Grau contends AHS did not meaningfully explore accommodations or alternatives like a "sitter" role | AHS points to training, weekly vacancy reviews, extended RTW eligibility, and individualized assistance from HR | Court found AHS made repeated efforts; Grau failed to identify a specific reasonable accommodation or vacancy she could perform |
| Whether a transfer was required or feasible | Grau argues transfer to another position (e.g., sitter/spotter) was a reasonable accommodation | AHS argues no vacant, funded position suitable for Grau existed and the duties she cited were nursing assistant duties she could not perform | Court held plaintiff failed to show a vacant position she was qualified for with accommodation; no obligation to bump other employees |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Grau asserts factual disputes (interactive process, available roles) preclude summary judgment | AHS argues evidence shows no genuine issue: medical tests and opinions show inability to perform essential functions | Court affirmed summary judgment for AHS because competent evidence showed Grau could not perform essential duties even with accommodation |
Key Cases Cited
- Polzo v. County of Essex, 209 N.J. 51 (discussing summary judgment standard and view of facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (standard for evaluating summary judgment and genuine issue of material fact)
- Jansen v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 110 N.J. 363 (employer may act if disability reasonably precludes performance of particular employment)
- Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383 (elements of prima facie reasonable accommodation claim under LAD)