In the Matter of Paul Williams, Township of Lakewood, 129 A.3d 393

Background

Paul Williams, a Lakewood DPW truck driver since 2004, received notice in December 2013 ordering him to attend a psychological fitness‑for‑duty exam based on an anonymous March 2013 letter alleging daily tirades and threats.
The Township warned Williams discipline would follow if he failed to attend; Williams refused, asserting the exam was not "job‑related and consistent with business necessity" under the ADA.
The Township terminated Williams for failing to attend; an ALJ at OAL reversed, finding no investigation, no objective evidence of impairment or threat, and that the anonymous letter was unreliable.
The Civil Service Commission reversed the ALJ, treating Williams’ refusal as insubordination and imposing a six‑month suspension, conditioning reinstatement on a psychologist’s finding of fitness.
The Appellate Division reviewed whether the Township lawfully ordered the psychological exam under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) (ADA) and whether the Commission’s determination was reasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Township lawfully ordered a psychological fitness‑for‑duty exam under the ADA	Williams: order was not "job‑related and consistent with business necessity" because there was no objective evidence or credible source showing impairment or direct threat	Township: anonymous letter alleging safety concerns justified the exam and Williams’ refusal justified discipline	Court: Order unlawful under ADA — anonymous letter and lack of investigation did not provide reasonable belief based on objective evidence or reliable third‑party information
Whether refusal to attend the exam constituted insubordination warranting discipline	Williams: refusal was lawful because the underlying order violated the ADA	Township/Commission: ignoring supervisor's written/oral orders is insubordination meriting penalty	Court: Finding of insubordination was erroneous as a matter of law because the order itself was unlawful
Appropriateness of the Commission’s imposed penalty and conditional reinstatement	Williams: ALJ’s full reinstatement with back pay and counsel fees appropriate	Commission: lesser penalty (six‑month suspension) and required psych clearance before reinstatement	Court: Commission’s penalty vacated; remanded to calculate back pay and reconsider counsel fees; left open further proceedings consistent with ADA analysis
Employer obligations when receiving third‑party allegations of safety concerns	Williams: employer must investigate and rely on objective, reliable evidence before ordering medical exams	Township: relied on anonymous letter and managerial concern to act	Court: Employer must investigate; may rely on third‑party info only if credible and reliable per EEOC factors; here Township failed to investigate and waited eight months, so reliance was unreasonable

Key Cases Cited

In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19 (administrative review scope)
In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429 (deference to agency decisions)
In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199 (standards for reviewing agency findings)
Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85 (judicial review of agency legal questions)
Tice v. Ctr. Area Transp. Auth., 247 F.3d 506 (deference to EEOC ADA regulations)
Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth., 691 F.3d 809 (discussion of ADA § 12112(d)(4)(A))
Yin v. California, 95 F.3d 864 (employer may require exam only when problems substantially affect job performance)
Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (value of agency guidance in statutory interpretation)
Duda v. Bd. of Educ., 133 F.3d 1054 (use of EEOC guidance for ADA questions)
Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (affording deference to enforcing agency interpretations)
In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (court will not "rubber stamp" administrative decisions)