Opinion ID: 3010064
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The LAD claim.

Text: The section of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) under which Olson brought his claim provides, in relevant part: the provisions of this act. . . prohibit any unlawful discrimination against any person because such person is or has been at any time handicapped or any unlawful employment practice against such person, unless the nature and extent of the handicap reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment. N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1. The LAD thus uses the term handicap as opposed to disability. The district court did not discuss Olson's LAD claim because it ruled that its holding that Olson had not established a claim under the ADA also defeated his claim under the LAD. The court stated, [f]or the same reasons that plaintiff has failed to establish that he is disabled under the ADA, he has likewise failed to establish that he is within the class of persons protected by the LAD. Dist. Ct. Op. at 9, n.2. It is clear that the same McDonnell Douglas framework that guides us under the ADA would also guide a New Jersey court under the LAD. See McKenna v. Pacific Rail Service, 32 F.3d 820, 824 (3d Cir.1994); Waldron v. SL Industries, Inc., 56 F.3d 491, 503504 (3d Cir. 1995); Andersen v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 446 A.2d 486, 490-491 (N.J. 1982); Kelly v. Bally's Grand, Inc., 667 A.2d 355, 359 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995); Grigoletti v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 570 A.2d 903 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1990). It is not nearly so clear, however, whether a disability under the ADA is the same as a handicap under the LAD. Olson argues that the LAD standard for demonstrating a handicap is much less stringent than the standard for demonstrating a disability under the ADA. Specifically, he contends there is no requirement under the LAD that a handicap substantially limit one or more of the major life activities of an individual. In Andersen v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 446 A.2d 486 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1982), the New Jersey Supreme Court, rejecting a construction of the LAD that would make it applicable only to severe disabilities, wrote: We need not limit this remedial legislation to the halt, the maimed or the blind. The law prohibits unlawful discrimination against those suffering from physical disability. As remedial legislation, the [LAD] should be construed with that high degree of liberality which comports with the preeminent social significance of its purposes and objects. Since the inception of the [LAD], our courts have repeatedly recognized its humanitarian concerns, its remedial nature and the liberal construction accorded it. The paramount purpose of the statute is to secure to handicapped individuals full and equal access to society, bounded only by the actual physical limits that they cannot surmount. . . . [I]t would be ironic indeed for the individual only slightly handicapped to be denied coverage under the act while more restricted individuals are accorded protection. The statute speaks in terms of any physical disability. There is simply no basis for limiting its coverage to so-called severe disabilities. 446 A.2d at 492 (citations and internal quotations omitted). Although the circumstances in Andersen caused the court to speak in terms of physical handicaps, the actual language of the LAD encompasses more than physical impairment. The LAD provides, in relevant part, as follows: Handicapped means suffering . . . from any mental, psychological or developmental disability resulting from anatomical, psychological, physiological or neurological conditions which prevents the normal exercise of any bodily or mental functions or is demonstrable, medically or psychologically, by accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques. N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(q)(emphasis added). Thus, it appears that Olson would be suffering from a handicap under the LAD if his depression, his sleep disorder or his multiple personality disorder, singly or in combination, would prevent the normal exercise of his bodily or mental functions (as may be required under the ADA's substantial limitation of a major life function) or if the disability is diagnosed under medically accepted techniques. Accordingly, it may be that the LAD does not require that Olson demonstrate that his depression, sleep disorder, or multiple personality disorder substantially limit[] one or more of [his] major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A), and that Olson can be handicapped under the LAD without being disabled under the ADA. However, we need not decide that issue now. Upon remand, the district court will be able to resolve the LAD claim after reviewing additional briefs of the parties and the latest New Jersey authority. We regret, however, that that determination must of necessity (given the absence of a certification procedure in New Jersey) be based upon a federal court's assessment of the current state of New Jersey law.