The recent unpublished decision in Laposta v. John F. Kennedy Medical Center confirms employers obligations under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50, as it relates to disability discrimination and reasonable accommodations. On June 2, 2025, the Appellate Court affirmed the motion court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants, John F. Kennedy Medical Center and Hackensack Meridian Health Inc. (“Defendants”) on claims of disability discrimination/perceived disability discrimination and failure to accommodate.[1]
Background
As a way background, Plaintiff Peter Laposta (“Plaintiff”) was employed by Defendants since the 1990s as a part-time food service worker. Plaintiff’s job responsibilities included, but were not limited to, the following tasks: (1) cleaning, such as washing and sanitizing pots and pans, mopping, and disposing of trash; (2) collecting trays from patients and ensuring safety and privacy protocols were followed; (3) serving food; and (4) restocking of supplies. Since Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants first started, he was unable to complete many of the functions of a food service worker as Plaintiff had Cerebral Palsy, which limited his motor, vocal, and physical abilities, including excessive drooling and spitting when talking. Plaintiff was also unable to serve patients as his Cerebral Palsy made it difficult for him to take care of his hygiene and dexterity. Because of this, Plaintiff was only responsible for taking the garbage out and wiping down the cafeteria tables. For these two tasks, Plaintiff normally needed his supervisor’s assistance to complete them.
Defendants continued to accommodate Plaintiff for decades, even though they received complaints from customers and other employees regarding Plaintiff’s behavior and hygiene. However, Defendants’ protocol changed in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the cafeteria tables had to be cleaned more thoroughly and more often, which Plaintiff had difficulty with, and Plaintiff could no longer lift trash bags as they became too heavy. The change in protocol also required more stringent safety procedures, including the need for employees to wear masks and have proper hygiene care. Due to Plaintiff’s drooling, masks could not be used properly by him, and he oftentimes was found without a mask. Additionally, due to Plaintiff’s mobility and dexterity complications, Plaintiff was found wearing soiled clothing, and he was unable to wash his hands normally.
Based on these safety and hygiene concerns, Defendants’ physician recommended that Plaintiff’s status at work be changed to “No Work Capacity.” Plaintiff’s own personal physician disagreed with this finding. Due to the difference in findings, Defendants obtained a third-party to complete an independent examination. The findings of this evaluation demonstrated that Plaintiff had the ability to conduct light work with assistance and that these restrictions were permanent.
The evaluation only considered whether Plaintiff was physically able to work and did not consider the outstanding hygiene and safety issues. As to these hygiene and safety issues, with consultation from Human Resources and/or leadership, Defendants concluded that it was impossible for Plaintiff to follow the proper safety protocols to perform the job of a food service provider. Accordingly, even with the evaluation’s findings, Plaintiff was terminated.
Plaintiff filed his complaint and Defendants subsequently filed for summary judgment.
Analysis
Even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Appellate Court agreed with the motion court in that Plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination or failure to accommodate. The Appellate Court’s opinion primarily focused on the second factor of a prima facie case, i.e., whether an employee is “qualified to perform the essential functions of the job and was performing at a level that met the employer’s expectations.” Under this standard, Plaintiff did not provide any evidence to demonstrate he was qualified for the job, even with a reasonable accommodation. Under an objective standard, Plaintiff would never be able to show that he was qualified as he had never completed the essential functions of the job since his employment with Defendants first began. The Appellate Court also explained that while light-duty work may be a potential solution for someone with a temporary disability, nothing in the law mandates that Defendants must indefinitely provide light-duty work. Beyond this, the court also found legitimate Defendants’ concerns on Plaintiff’s hygiene, in which Plaintiff conceded some of these concerns.
The Appellate Court was not swayed by the independent evaluation as the report was silent on the safety and hygiene issues, and the report noted that Plaintiff’s symptoms were permanent. As to the safety and hygiene issues, the Appellate Court held that Plaintiff’s mobility, dexterity, and drooling prevented Plaintiff from complying with Defendants’ safety requirements. Based on all of this, since Plaintiff did not “possess the bona fide occupational qualifications for the job position,” there was no need to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff.
Takeaways
The Appellate Court’s affirmation of the lower court’s decision demonstrates a few important points: (1) an employer only needs to provide a reasonable accommodation when the employee possess the bona fide occupational qualifications of the position; and (2) an employer’s past acts of going beyond what NJLAD requires does not prohibit an employer from later asserting that the inability to complete the essential function of a job (with or without a reasonable accommodation) is means for termination. Even further, while Plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case, this matter demonstrates the continued importance of employers actively engaging in the interactive process. While there may be situations where no reasonable accommodation would allow an employee to complete the essential functions of the job, as was the case in Laposta, an employer’s diligent efforts in attempt to find a reasonable accommodation through the interactive process continues to be crucial in successfully defending claims involving disabilities and reasonable accommodation.
[1] Plaintiff also made a claim of retaliation which was dismissed in the same summary judgment motion and affirmed by the Appellate Court.
Please contact an NFC team member if you have any questions or seek further assistance.
