In Van Dunk v. Reckson Assoc. Realty Corp., 2012 N.J. LEXIS 678 (N.J. June 26, 2012), the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether an employee’s personal injury suit against his employer following a trench collapse, for which the employer was fined by OSHA for a willful violation, could be maintained despite the exclusivity provisions of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act. An OSHA investigation revealed that the employer violated safety requirements, and the project superintendent acknowledged that he was aware of the trench requirements and failed to follow them. While the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged that the employer’s conduct could be considered gross negligence by a reasonable fact finder, absent further proof, that was not enough to demonstrate that an “intentional wrong” was committed. Accordingly, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s claims against his employer were barred by the exclusivity provision of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act.
Employees in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, now enjoy more expansive protections against discrimination than they do under Ohio and federal law.
EEOC has Defined “Ability to Interact With Others” as a Major Life Activity, Making Social Anxiety Disorder a Disability Under the ADA
An employee who was fired after asking to be reassigned to a role with less direct personal interaction as an accommodation for her social anxiety disorder has been allowed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to take her case to a jury. Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, No. 13-2212 (March 12, 2015).
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a plaintiff cannot demonstrate age discrimination merely by pointing to a “politically incorrect” comment made by the plaintiff’s direct supervisor months before, in an entirely different context.