Indefinite Leave Is Not A Reasonable Accommodation, District Of New Jersey Holds

In Bourhill v. Nextel of New York, Inc., 2013 WL 1680140 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2013), an employee with a back condition was granted several consecutive leaves of absences (spanning eight months of leave), followed by an open-ended request for “at least two months” of leave. He was discharged following the last request, and filed disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and wrongful discharge claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). Rejecting the plaintiff’s case at summary judgment, the New Jersey District Court held that by the time of the termination, the employer had already taken “significant actions to accommodate Plaintiff.” Moreover, as of the time of the plaintiff’s discharge, it was unclear when, or even if, the plaintiff would recover from his impairments and return to work, and the plaintiff and/or his physician incorrectly predicted an estimated return date on each prior occasion. In sum, “[a]t a certain point, holding a job open for an extensive or indeterminate period of time becomes unreasonable.”

Note: This article was published in the September 2013 issue of the New Jersey eAuthority.

- See more at: http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/publications/2013-09-18/indefinite-leave-not-reasonable-accommodation-district-new-jersey-holds#sthash.iSrzV3U8.dpuf

 

In Bourhill v. Nextel of New York, Inc., 2013 WL 1680140 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2013), an employee with a back condition was granted several consecutive leaves of absences (spanning eight months of leave), followed by an open-ended request for “at least two months” of leave. He was discharged following the last request, and filed disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and wrongful discharge claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). Rejecting the plaintiff’s case at summary judgment, the New Jersey District Court held that by the time of the termination, the employer had already taken “significant actions to accommodate Plaintiff.” Moreover, as of the time of the plaintiff’s discharge, it was unclear when, or even if, the plaintiff would recover from his impairments and return to work, and the plaintiff and/or his physician incorrectly predicted an estimated return date on each prior occasion. In sum, “[a]t a certain point, holding a job open for an extensive or indeterminate period of time becomes unreasonable.”

Note: This article was published in the September 2013 issue of the New Jersey eAuthority.

Written by:

more+
less-

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×
Loading...
×
×