Our Firm News
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT—DISCRIMINATION
25-2-4927 Martin v. Quick Chek Corp., App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Plaintiff appeals a discovery order limiting his access to a supervisor’s work notebook to those pages on which he was mentioned, an order granting summary judgment to defendant, and an order denying his motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment in this action alleging wrongful termination and discrimination as a result of his Parkinson’s disease in violation of the Law Against Discrimination. The panel affirms. The trial judge did not err in limiting plaintiff’s access to the entire work notebook as it contained confidential personnel information relating to other employees not relevant to this litigation. The court did not err in granting summary judgment as the two factual inconsistencies asserted by plaintiff do not amount to a dispute of material facts; the LAD is not offended by a private company’s strict enforcement of its no-tolerance drug policy; there is no legal precedent to support plaintiff’s claim that defendants’ awareness of his disease triggered a legal obligation to disregard his explicit request for a demotion and offer an accommodation that would allow him to maintain his manager position where he did not request an accommodation; and since summary judgment was properly granted in Quick Chek’s favor, the individual supervisors cannot legally be held liable.
Case reported as Martin et al. v. Quick Check Corp. et al., 2012 WL 127530 (N.J.Super.A.D.) (Jan. 18, 2012) (download the pdf)
|
