Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ.
211 A.3d 1226
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2019Background
- Mary Richter, a Type I diabetic middle-school teacher, requested an earlier lunch period as a medical accommodation because supervising cafeteria duty delayed her meal and risked hypoglycemic events.
- The principal verbally acknowledged the request but did not document a schedule change for one marking period; Richter was accommodated for the second marking period but not consistently in the third.
- On March 5, 2013 Richter suffered a hypoglycemic seizure in class, causing severe, permanent injuries; she thereafter obtained workers' compensation benefits (medical, temporary disability, and permanent injury payments).
- Richter sued the Oakland Board of Education and the principal under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) for failure to accommodate; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Richter failed to show an adverse employment action.
- The trial court granted defendants' summary judgment and denied Richter’s cross‑motion; on appeal the Appellate Division reversed in part, holding adverse employment action is not a required element for an LAD failure‑to‑accommodate claim and remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an LAD failure‑to‑accommodate plaintiff must prove an adverse employment action | Richter: No; Victor and Royster permit claims absent an adverse employment action when circumstances "cry out for a remedy" | Board: Yes; adverse employment action is a required prima facie element | Held: No requirement to prove adverse employment action for LAD failure‑to‑accommodate claims; Richter may proceed to trial |
| Whether defendants reasonably engaged in the interactive accommodation process | Richter: Defendants failed to engage in good‑faith interactive process and never reasonably accommodated her | Board: Administrators verbally excused her from duty or provided alternative measures; they made efforts to accommodate | Held: Genuine factual disputes exist on good‑faith interactive process; denial of Richter’s summary judgment cross‑motion affirmed |
| Whether Richter’s LAD bodily‑injury claim is barred by workers' compensation exclusivity | Richter: LAD claim is not barred; intentional‑wrong exception applies | Board: Exclusive remedy bars the tort claim or entitles Board to full credit for comp benefits paid | Held: Not barred under Laidlow; intentional‑wrong exception may apply and claim may proceed to jury |
| If civil recovery is allowed, what offset/lien applies for workers’ compensation benefits paid | Board: 100% credit (dollar‑for‑dollar) for compensation it paid | Richter: Section 40 entitles employer to reimbursement but practical distribution allows two‑thirds to employer/carrier and one‑third to plaintiff’s counsel for fees | Held: If Richter prevails, Board/carrier gets statutory reimbursement under N.J.S.A. 34:15‑40; practical effect is employer keeps two‑thirds (with one‑third for counsel fees and limited costs) if award equals or exceeds compensation paid; medical bills and lost wages may be introduced at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383 (2010) (discusses whether adverse employment consequence is required for failure‑to‑accommodate claims under LAD)
- Royster v. N.J. State Police, 227 N.J. 482 (2017) (articulates elements for LAD failure‑to‑accommodate claim without requiring adverse employment action)
- Laidlow v. Hariton Mach. Co., Inc., 170 N.J. 602 (2002) (adopts two‑prong substantial‑certainty/context test for intentional‑wrong exception to workers' compensation exclusivity)
- Millison v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 (1985) (applies intentional‑wrong exception and discusses setoff/reimbursement under workers' compensation statute)
- Calalpa v. Dae Ryung Co., Inc., 357 N.J. Super. 220 (App. Div. 2003) (clarifies section 40 lien application and employer/carrier reimbursement when employer is tortfeasor)