NJ Diabetic Teacher’s Failure to Accommodate Claim Not Barred by Exclusivity

In a decision discussing several employment-related law issues, a New Jersey appellate court held, in relevant part, that a bodily injury claim arising from an employer’s failure to accommodate allegation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) [N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49} was not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) in spite of the fact that the employee earlier had sought and recovered workers’ compensation benefits for her injuries [Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ., 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 84 (June 11, 2019)]. The court found the teacher had sufficiently stated an intentional injury claim against her employer. It softened the blow a bit, however, by adding that if the trier-of-fact later determined that the employer’s actions had been intentional, the employer could offset the compensation benefits previously paid to the extent that the civil damage award would serve as a double recovery.

Background

Richter, a middle school teacher who suffers from diabetes. While at work one afternoon, she had a seizure and became unconscious, causing her to strike her head and face on a lab table and the floor, and to bleed extensively. She was transported to a hospital for treatment. Even though she had minor hypoglycemic events at school in the past, she had never passed out at school. As a result of her work-related injuries, Richter filed a workers’ compensation claim. Her employer paid $18,940.94 for her medical bills, $9,792.40 for temporary disability benefits, and $77,200 for the permanent injuries she suffered.

Richter subsequently filed a civil action against her employer, contending that she had fainted while teaching due to low blood sugar levels, that she suffered significant and permanent injuries. Richter contended the accident would not have occurred had her employer (and its representative) granted her accommodation request (under the LED) to eat lunch earlier.

In addition to denying liability under the LED, the employer contended that once Richter had sought and received workers’ compensation benefits, she could not then also seek damages from her employer. The motion judge did not reach that issue, however, in as much as the judge concluded, as a matter of law, that Richter failed to prove a prima facie case of failure to accommodate her disability because she did not establish an adverse employment action. Richter appealed.

Appellate Court Decision

The appellate court reversed, concluding that Richter need not demonstrate an adverse employment action to establish a prima facie case of a failure to accommodate claim under the LAD. Because the court determined that Richter’s LAD claim should proceed to trial, it was required to address the employer’s cross-appeal contending that Richter’s bodily injury claim due to the Board’s failure to accommodate her disability should be barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Act.

Intentional Tort Exception to Exclusivity

Citing Laidlow v. Harton Mach. Co., Inc., 170 N.J. 602, 790 A.2d 884 (2002), the court acknowledged that, in general, where an employee pursues remedies under the Act, she gives up the right to pursue common law claims for work-related injuries. The court noted, however, that an exception had been carved out for the intentional wrongs of the employer. Moreover, under Laidlow, an injured worker need not establish that the employer “subjectively desired to harm him or her” in order to satisfy the intentional-wrong exception.

“Substantially Certain” Rule

The court stressed that in order for an employer’s act to lose the cloak of immunity of N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, two conditions must be satisfied:

1. The employer must know that his actions are substantially certain to result in injury or death to the employee, and
2. The resulting injury and the circumstances of its infliction on the worker must be (a) more than a fact of life of industrial employment and (b) plainly beyond anything the Legislature intended the Act to immunize [Laidlow, 170 N.J. at 617, 790 A.2d 884].

Applying the Laidlow test to Richter’s LAD bodily injury claim, the court concluded that it was not barred by the Act’s exclusive remedy provision. Considering Richter’s allegations in the light most favorable to her as the non-moving party, the school principal intentionally refused her accommodation request, and it was substantially certain that she could suffer a hypoglycemic event that could cause bodily injuries. This was not the “simple fact of industrial life” envisioned by the Act, said the court.

The court added that if the trier-of-fact later determined that the employer’s actions had been intentional, the employer could offset the compensation benefits previously paid to the extent that the civil damage award would serve as a double recovery.