August 13, 2022

Volume XII, Number 225

Advertisement
Advertisement

August 12, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 11, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 10, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

New Jersey District Court Allows Plaintiff to Proceed to Trial on Claim of Unlawful Discharge, Dissmisses Claims of Handicap and Discrimination

The New Jersey District Court in St. Cyr v. Brandywine Senior Living LLC, recently granted summary judgment to the employer dismissing the plaintiff’s causes of action for handicap and race discrimination, but allowed the plaintiff to go to trial on her claim that she was unlawfully discharged in violation of the FMLA in retaliation for asking for a medical leave of absence because she was fired only two days before the leave of absence was to begin. In granting summary judgment on the claim of handicap discrimination, the court determined that the plaintiff, who suffered from arthritis, was not “handicapped” under the NJLAD because the condition, which was alleviated with medication, did not interfere with her ability to perform her job, and because she never asked for an accommodation for the condition. The court rejected her claim of race discrimination based on her admission that the only evidence implicating racial animus was the fact that she was fired for watching the BET Network on television during working hours. The court noted that the plaintiff, who had previously been placed on probation for poor performance and was on final warning, was replaced by an African American employee and had failed to show the legitimate reason given for her discharge was pretextual. Despite that finding, however, and despite the fact that the employer had granted the plaintiff’s request for a medical leave of absence, the court denied summary judgment on the claim of retaliatory discharge under the FMLA based only on the determination that the timing of the discharge – only two days before her FMLA leave was to begin – was “unusually suggestive” of retaliatory motivation. The court did not explain how the timing could be suspect if that was when the plaintiff was found watching television instead of doing her job, and if there was no evidence that the proffered reason was pretextual.

© 2022 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume II, Number 214
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Drinker Biddle’s Labor and Employment Practice provides businesses with a full range of employment-related legal services. Our clients include a broad range of foreign and domestic corporations, including industrial manufacturers, retailers, nonprofit educational and public institutions, health care organizations, financial services providers and consulting firms. For many of these clients, we serve as national counsel for labor and employment matters, especially in the retail and financial services industries. We are committed to providing real-time, real-world...

215-988-2834
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement