New Jersey Appellate Division decision finds employee suspected of contracting COVID-19 failed to assert a perceived disability claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Decision shows New Jersey courts are willing to limit expansive definition of “disabled” under state law, but employers still need to be mindful that disability discrimination cases under both state and federal law are extremely fact-specific.

Although both the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibit disability and perceived disability discrimination in the workplace, the LAD definition of “disability” is significantly broader than is the federal ADA definition. As a result, many employers have assumed – often correctly – that virtually any medical condition may constitute a covered disability under the LAD, triggering that law’s reasonable accommodation obligations and termination precautions. On June 7, 2023, in Guzman v. M. Teixeira International, Inc., the New Jersey Appellate Division showed a willingness to limit the LAD’s seemingly boundless definition of “disabled,” ruling against an employee alleging a perceived disability claim involving COVID-19.

The Differing Definitions of “Disability” Under Federal and New Jersey Law

Under both the ADA and LAD, covered employers are prohibited from discriminating against qualified individuals on the basis of a physical or mental disability with regard to employment and its...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiemh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmxpdHRsZXIuY29tL3B1...