New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog
In a recent unpublished decision, New Jersey’s Appellate Division make it clear that an employee does not have to have a severe or permanent impairment to have a viable disability discrimination to be protected by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).
The case was filed by Bart Algozzini, who worked for DGMB Casino, LLC doing business as Resorts Casino Hotel (“Resorts”) as its Director of Slot Operations. Mr. Algozzini took a medical leave after he suffered second and third-degree burns over seventy percent of his body after his boat exploded. He was hospitalized for a month, during which he was placed in a medically-induced coma for more than two weeks. After leaving the hospital, he was in a rehab facility for a week-and-a-half, followed by over three months of outpatient physical therapy sessions.
While Mr. Algozzini was on his medical leave, Resorts eliminated his position as the Director of Slot Operations and instead created two new positions: Slot Service Manager and Slot Technical Manager. Resorts gave Mr. Algozzini the position of Slot Service Manager, a job with fewer responsibilities and that paid $23,000 less per year than his former position as its Director of Slot Operations. Resorts did not eliminate any other positions at that time.
Mr. Algozzini complained to Resorts about the fact that it had demoted him, which he asserted was discriminatory and violated the law.
When Mr. Algozzini returned to work, he was walking with a cane. Shortly thereafter, Resorts eliminated the position of Slot Service Manager and terminated Mr. Algozzini’s employment as a result. Mr. Algozzini’s job was one of 39 positions the casino eliminated at the same time.
Mr. Algozzini filed a lawsuit against Resorts, claiming it had violated the LAD. Specifically, he alleged that its decision to demote and fire him constituted disability discrimination, and its decision to fire him constituted retaliation.
However, the trial court dismissed his case. Among other things, the trial court judge concluded that Mr. Algozzini failed to prove he had a disability within the meaning of the LAD. He also ruled that there was not enough evidence to support his retaliation claim on the basis that he was not disabled when he complained about disability discrimination. Mr. Algozzini appealed.
On July 17, 2024, in Algozzini v. DGMB Casino, LLC, the Appellate Division overruled the trial judge and reinstated the case. The appellate court recognized that the LAD has a broad definition of disability that includes impairments that are neither substantial nor permanent, and concluded that the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that Mr. Algozzini had a disability within that definition. Accordingly, it reinstated his disability discrimination claim.
Similarly, the Appellate Division restored Mr. Algozzini’s retaliation claim. It explained that an individual can be protected against retaliation if he objected about potential disability discrimination whether or not he actually has a disability. It also made it clear that, even if the LAD only protected disabled individuals against retaliation for reporting disability discrimination, the evidence supports finding that that Mr. Algozzini is disabled.