Mary Richter v. Oakland Board of Education (083273)
246 N.J. 507
| N.J. | 2021Background
- Mary Richter, a long‑time Type 1 diabetic and middle‑school science teacher, repeatedly asked her principal to adjust her schedule so she could eat lunch earlier to manage blood sugar levels.
- The principal did not make the requested schedule change for certain marking periods; Richter continued cafeteria duty and used glucose tablets to cope.
- On March 5, 2013 Richter suffered a hypoglycemic seizure in class, hit her head, and sustained serious, permanent injuries.
- Richter recovered workers’ compensation benefits (medical payments and disability benefits) and thereafter sued the Oakland Board of Education and the principal under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) for failure to accommodate her disability.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (a) Richter failed to plead an adverse employment action (an element they said necessary for an LAD failure‑to‑accommodate claim) and (b) her bodily‑injury damages were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) exclusivity provision.
- The Appellate Division reversed the grant of summary judgment; the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed (with modifications) and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an adverse employment action is a required element of a LAD failure‑to‑accommodate claim | Richter: No — employer’s failure to accommodate or engage in the interactive process is itself actionable without a separate adverse employment act | Board/Desiderio: Yes — plaintiff must show an adverse employment action (e.g., discharge, demotion, reassignment) to state a prima facie claim | Court: No — an adverse employment action is not required; employer’s omission to accommodate is the wrongful act and is actionable |
| Whether an LAD bodily‑injury claim is barred by the WCA exclusivity provision | Richter: No — the LAD (as amended) provides common‑law remedies and supplements other statutes; LAD claims are not subordinated to the WCA | Defendants: Yes — WCA is the exclusive remedy for work‑related bodily injuries; plaintiff must fit within the WCA’s intentional‑wrong exception to sue for tort‑style damages | Court: No — the WCA exclusivity bar does not preclude LAD claims; LAD and WCA are harmonizable and serve different remedial purposes |
| If WCA exclusivity applied, whether plaintiff must satisfy the WCA intentional‑wrong exception | Richter: If necessary, evidence could support intentional‑wrong (intentional refusal to accommodate) | Defendants: Plaintiff cannot satisfy intentional‑wrong; employer did not commit conduct substantially certain to cause injury | Court: Did not require filtering LAD claims through intentional‑wrong; because LAD claims are not barred by WCA, the intentional‑wrong test is unnecessary here |
| Whether employer is entitled to 100% reimbursement (credit) for workers’ compensation payments under N.J.S.A. 34:15‑40 and whether plaintiff’s medical expenses/lost wages are admissible to the jury | Richter: Section 40 lien applies but employer is not entitled to 100% credit; compensation attorney’s fees are excluded from lien; medical expenses/lost wages from WCA should not be submitted to jury | Defendants: Should receive full reimbursement (100% credit); jury can consider medical expenses/lost wages | Court: Employer is entitled to a Section 40 lien limited by statute (not 100%); jury must not be shown the WCA medical/temp disability payments or the compensation counsel fees; trial court to apply lien rules on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383 (2010) (surveyed failure‑to‑accommodate doctrine and left open whether adverse action is always required)
- Royster v. State Police, 227 N.J. 482 (2017) (recited elements of LAD failure‑to‑accommodate claim without listing adverse employment action)
- Caraballo v. City of Jersey City Police Dep’t, 237 N.J. 255 (2019) (again recited failure‑to‑accommodate elements absent an adverse‑action element)
- Laidlow v. Hariton Mach. Co., Inc., 170 N.J. 602 (2002) (formulated the two‑prong ‘‘intentional wrong’’ test under the WCA)
- Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 (1985) (explained the WCA as a trade‑off replacing common‑law remedies with scheduled compensation)
- Schmidt v. Smith, 155 N.J. 44 (1998) (affirming Appellate Division holding that workers’ compensation is not the exclusive remedy for LAD workplace harassment claims)
- Exby‑Stolley v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 979 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (held an adverse employment action is not required for ADA failure‑to‑accommodate claims)