[brief] PRELIMINARY STATEMENT  The trial court erred in granting Defendant/Respondents’ motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Plaintiff/Appellant’s Complaint in its entirety.  Plaintiff/Appellant, [...] (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “[...]”) was formerly employed by Defendant/Respondent, [...] (hereinafter “[...]” or “Defendant”).  Defendant unlawfully terminated [...] in direct response to her request to work from home because of the Covid-19 pandemic.  As a result, Plaintiff filed suit against [...] and [...], individually\(^1\) asserting causes of action for violation of the New Jersey Laws Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) and common law retaliation.  By way of background, fear and worry stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic were circulating in the early weeks of March 2020.  In multiple text messages to her direct supervisor, sent on March 12\(^{th}\) and 13\(^{th}\), [...] expressed having “anxiety” relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and noted the general fear and anxiety in the [...] office as well.  Plaintiff was particularly concerned by working in person, as well as using public transportation to travel from New York City to the [...] office located in --- \(^1\)  Claims against [...] were dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff does not seek appeal from that aspect of the decision.  [...], because she reasonably believed she was at an increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to a history of obesity.  Continuing to mandate its employees work in person contravened public policy aimed at protecting public health and safety, as well as mitigating the spread of COVID-19.  As a result, by way of email dated March 13, 2020, [...] wrote, “Dear Leadership, Since we have the ability to efficiently work remotely, requiring us to come into the office during a pandemic unnecessarily risks our health. ”  In immediate response, Defendant terminated [...], stating, “Thank you for your email and thank you for your service at [...].  Be safe and good luck in your future. ”  This was not only a rash decision, but an unlawful one, in violation of the NJLAD and constituted common law retaliation.  At the close of discovery Defendant moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.  The trial court supported this decision with a disjointed opinion on the record which plainly overlooked the requisite caselaw and facts presented.  More pointedly that decision is erroneous because: 1) Plaintiff identified various sources of public policy, forming the basis of her common law retaliation claim pursuant to *Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.*, 84 N.J. 58 (1998).  Yet the trial court narrowly interpreted public policy, placing greater emphasis on the trial court’s own recollections of the Covid-19 pandemic, rather than the multiple sources of public policy which mandate a safe and healthy work environment, underpinning Plaintiff’s request to work from home; and.  2)  Plaintiff suffered from anxiety and obesity, both of which qualify as “disabilities” as defined by the NJLAD.  In finding otherwise, the trial court failed to apply the broad legal analysis warranted under the NJLAD.  The trial court also refused to view facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff.  For these reasons, as detailed at length below, summary judgment was improper, and the trial court must be reversed.