Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 08 June 2021
• Docket Number: A-23 September Term 2019,083273
• Citation: 252 A.3d 161,246 N.J. 507
• Parties: Mary RICHTER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OAKLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant, and Gregg Desiderio, individually and as Principal of the Valley Middle School, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

246 N.J. 507

252 A.3d 161

Mary RICHTER, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. OAKLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellant,andGregg Desiderio, individually and as Principal of the Valley Middle School, Defendant-Appellant.

A-23 September Term 2019

083273

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued September 14, 2020

Decided June 8, 2021

Revised June 15, 2021

Aileen F. Droughton, Red Bank, argued the cause for appellants Oakland Board of Education and Gregg Desiderio (Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry, attorneys; Aileen F. Droughton, on the briefs).

Betsy G. Ramos, Mt. Laurel, argued the cause for appellant Oakland Board of Education (Capehart & Scatchard, attorneys; Betsy G. Ramos, on the briefs).

Gerald Jay Resnick, Roseland, argued the cause for respondent (Resnick Law Group, attorneys; Gerald Jay Resnick on the briefs).

Andrew Dwyer, Newark, argued the cause for amicus curiae National Employment Lawyers Association of New Jersey (The Dwyer Law Firm, attorneys; Andrew Dwyer, of counsel and on the briefs).

Benjamin Folkman, Cherry Hill, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Folkman Law Offices, attorneys; Benjamin Folkman, Eve R. Keller, Lauren M. Law, Sarah Slachetka, and Paul C. Jensen, Jr., Cherry Hill, on the briefs).

Renee Greenberg, Deputy Attorney General, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, Mayur P. Saxena, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief, and Renee Greenberg and Latoya L. Barrett, Deputy Attorneys General, on the brief).

Edward G. Sponzilli submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Norris McLaughlin, attorneys; Edward G. Sponzilli, of counsel and on the brief, and Annmarie Simeone, and Anthony P. D'Elia, Bridgewater, on the brief).

Richard A. Friedman, Newark, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Education Association (Zazzali, Fagella, Nowak, Kleinbaum & Friedman; attorneys; Richard A. Friedman, of counsel and on the brief, and Craig A. Long, on the brief).

Christine P. O'Hearn submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae the New Jersey Municipal Excess Liability Fund (Brown & Connery, attorneys; Christine P. O'Hearn, and Kathleen E. Dohn, Westmont, on the brief).

JUSTICE LaVECCHIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal raises two compelling issues for resolution by this Court. Unfortunately, the case arises from a tragic event.

Plaintiff Mary Richter, a longtime diabetic and teacher, experienced a hypoglycemic event in a classroom, which she claims happened because her work schedule prevented her from eating her lunch early enough in the day to maintain proper blood sugar levels. She fainted, hit her head on a science laboratory table, and sustained serious and permanent life-altering injuries.

Although Richter recovered benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146, she pursued through this action a claim under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, alleging that her employer failed to accommodate her pre-existing disability. According to Richter, in the months leading up to the incident, she repeatedly asked her school principal to change her schedule of teaching and cafeteria monitoring so she could manage her blood sugar levels by having her lunch earlier in the day, but he failed to accommodate her request.

The first issue we must address is whether Richter is required to establish an adverse employment action -- such as a demotion, termination, or other similarly recognized adverse employment action -- to be able to proceed with an LAD failure-to-accommodate disability claim. According to defendants, an adverse employment action is a required element of a failure-to-accommodate claim and Richter's pleading is fatally deficient for not including that element. We now put to rest that contention and hold that an adverse employment action is not a required element for a failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD.

The second issue raised by this appeal is whether plaintiff's claim is barred by the "exclusive remedy provision" of the WCA because she recovered workers’ compensation benefits. According to defendants, to the extent Richter's LAD claim includes a demand for damages for bodily injuries or their equivalent, it is barred under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 unless she proves that defendants engaged in an intentional wrong. For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that plaintiff's LAD claim based on defendants’ alleged failure to accommodate her pre-existing diabetic condition is not barred by the WCA, and we reject the further contention that plaintiff must filter her claim through the required showings of the "intentional wrong exception."

Accordingly, we affirm with modification the judgment of the Appellate Division, and we remand this matter for trial.

I.

A.

Because this appeal arises from a summary judgment record, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for judgment, here plaintiff. See Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540, 666 A.2d 146 (1995).

Richter was working as a science teacher, employed by the Oakland Board of Education (Board) and assigned to the Valley Middle School (VMS) at the time of the events that led to this action. Some background on the structure of the school year and school day at VMS is necessary to understand Richter's claim that defendants failed to accommodate her disability due to her pre-existing condition as a type 1 diabetic.¹

VMS's school year is divided into four academic marking periods. Each school day is divided into eight time periods. Students are assigned to eat lunch during either the fifth or the sixth time periods, which together last from 11:31 a.m. to 1:02 p.m. During those lunch periods, certain teachers are assigned to cafeteria monitoring duty, where they are responsible for supervising the students eating lunch. Accordingly, depending on their overall schedule, some teachers assigned to lunch duty must wait to eat their own lunch until seventh period, which is from 1:05 to 1:49 p.m.

At the start of the 2012-2013 school year, Richter received her schedule for the first marking period and learned that on Wednesdays and Thursdays she was assigned to lunch duty during fifth period, followed by an instructional class during sixth period; accordingly, she would not eat her own lunch until seventh period. Believing that waiting until seventh period to eat lunch would negatively affect her blood sugar levels, Richter asked VMS's principal, Gregg Desiderio, on the first day of school to adjust her schedule so she could eat lunch during fifth period. Desiderio told Richter he would "look into it."

On September 10, 2012, Richter followed up with an email to Desiderio, asking if he was "able to figure out a way to flip [her] lunch and duty periods on Wednesday and Thursday." Richter explained in the email that she had "tried a couple different things" to keep her blood sugar regulated, but those steps were of no avail. Desiderio did not respond to the email. Richter asserts that when she spoke again with Desiderio, he again stated that he would "look into it."

During one conversation with Richter, Desiderio told her that he did not believe he could "undo what he did" with the schedule; according to Desiderio, he also told Richter that if she was having trouble on a particular day, she could go to cafeteria duty late or skip it altogether. Richter denies that Desiderio ever said she could completely skip cafeteria duty, and it is undisputed that Desiderio never changed her schedule prior to the accident. For the remainder of the first marking period, Richter attended to her cafeteria duties and ingested glucose tablets to maintain her blood sugar levels.

For the second marking period, Richter's request for a fifth-period lunch was accommodated. But when the schedule for the third marking period issued, Richter was once again scheduled on Tuesdays for cafeteria duty during fifth period, an instructional class during sixth period, and her lunch during seventh period. Richter immediately approached Desiderio, who acknowledged that he had made a mistake when setting the third-marking-period schedule. Desiderio nonetheless declined to change the schedule, explaining that he needed three teachers on cafeteria duty each day. He told Richter that if she was not feeling well, she could sit down, have a snack, and report to duty once she was feeling better. Richter asked for Desiderio's instructions to be put in writing. He did not do so, nor did he change the schedule or direct anyone in the school's main office to change the schedule.

Although a union representative told Richter that she would not be disciplined for skipping cafeteria duty, Richter continued to attend her assigned cafeteria duty during the third marking period, believing Desiderio's additional directions needed to be in writing or the schedule needed to be changed. Richter feared that if an emergency occurred in the cafeteria while she was scheduled for duty, but not present, she could be held liable. As a result, on Tuesdays, Richter's blood sugar levels often fell below the normal range by the close of sixth period, requiring her to ingest glucose tablets.

On March 5, 2013, near the end of one such sixth period, Richter suffered a hypoglycemic event in front of her students. She had a seizure, lost consciousness, and struck her head on a lab table and the floor, causing extensive bleeding. Richter was transported to a hospital for treatment. Prior to that, she had never passed out at work.

After the accident, in a text exchange with Desiderio, Richter again asked him to change her schedule. Desiderio responded that he previously told her not to attend fifth period cafeteria duty, but he agreed to cross her name off the schedule for cafeteria duty.

As a result of...