Earlier this month, a three-judge panel for the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed a 2018 trial court decision granting summary judgment against a self-described obese former bus driver for defendant Community Bus Lines, Inc. (“Community”), and dismissing the driver’s claim for violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJ LAD”). In doing so, the appellate court held that “obesity alone is not protected under the NJ LAD as a disability unless it has an underlying medical cause.” Because plaintiff, in part, failed to present any direct or circumstantial evidence that defendants perceived the driver as disabled due to a medical condition that caused him to be overweight, the appellate court found his claim was without merit.
Case Background
The plaintiff in this matter worked as a bus driver for Community for 10 years during which time he weighed between 500 and 600 pounds. To maintain his status as an active bus driver, he was required to undergo a medical examination every two years and obtain medical certification verifying his fitness to drive. In 2015, a doctor certified by the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) conducted plaintiff’s examination and temporarily disqualified him from driving a bus pending further testing. The plaintiff never followed through to complete the required additional testing and was therefore placed “out of service.” Despite his failure to schedule the follow-up testing, plaintiff’s supervisor referred him for a second opinion to another doctor, who confirmed the prior conclusions and found that further testing was needed before a medical certification could be issued. Neither doctor who examined plaintiff determined that he was disabled but only that further testing was required before he could be certified. Plaintiff again did not pursue the required testing and remained on leave. Continue reading ““Obesity Alone” Is Not a Disability under the New Jersey Law against Discrimination”
As you may recall, in 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a Rule requiring private employers with more than 100 workers to include certain pay data, based on gender, race, and ethnicity, on their Form EEO-1s. The Rule, which purportedly was aimed at encouraging employers to ensure that compensation was directly related to jobs being performed and as a means of combating pay disparities, was slated to go into effect with the filing of EEO-1 forms in March 2018.
Some 40 years ago, in Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1979), the Fifth Circuit pronounced that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Despite the immense shift in the cultural and legal zeitgeists since then, including decisions from several federal appellate courts holding the exact opposite, the Fifth Circuit seized the opportunity in its recent decision in Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company to reiterate—albeit in dicta—that the Blum decision remains the law of that Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
The 
Countless companies contract with other companies to provide services and include a “no hire” provision (pursuant to which the parties to the contract agree to not hire employees of the contracting company) in the service contract. The goal of these provisions is to prevent the contractual business partner from raiding the other’s talent—at least not without paying a fee.
Unless you’ve been living under the Starship Enterprise, you’ve seen the laundry list of new laws recently passed by the California legislature, which went into effect this year. If you do business in the Golden State, you need a clear and concise understanding of what these new laws mean to your business. To assist, we’re rolling out a series of blog posts to spotlight some of the most far-reaching and significant California legislation to date.