Opinion ID: 3012704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ADA/NJLAD Inquiry Claim

Text: 3 Bassett contests the District Court’s holding that he cannot assert a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the NJLAD because he is not disabled. The ADA and NJLAD prohibit employers from using tests or questionnaires that are meant to, or that incidentally, result in discrimination against disabled individuals. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d); N.J.A.C. § 13:13-2.3(a) (“It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer . . . to make use of any employment test or other selection criterion that screens out . . . people with disabilities.”). The District Court avoided the ultimate question of liability by finding that a non-disabled person lacks standing to challenge his employer’s actions. See, e.g., Dist. Ct. Op., App. at A29. Alternatively, courts have assumed arguendo that an employer is violating the statute, but held that the particular plaintiff has no recourse because he is unable to demonstrate injury based on the employer’s action. See, e.g., Tice v. Centre Area Transp. Auth., 247 F.3d 506, 519-20 (3d Cir. 2001); Armstrong v. Turner Indus., Inc., 141 F.3d 554, 562 (5th Cir. 1998). We will follow this Court’s ruling in Tice that without an actual injury stemming from the violation, summary judgment for the employer is appropriate. 247 F.3d at 519-20. Bassett has shown no tangible injury from being subjected to the personality profile test. He cannot show a causal connection between the test and his termination. Two years elapsed between Basset taking the test and being terminated, with 4 three intervening promotions. Additionally, Bassett is unable to show that the individuals responsible for his firing even saw his test results. See Tice, 247 F.3d at 520 (noting that plaintiff “has not even identified a single person who improperly viewed his medical files”). As Bassett fails to demonstrate an injury, we refuse to let him maintain a suit against RAC on the alleged violation of the ADA and NJLAD. We reach the same result as the District Court—that Bassett is not entitled to relief on his ADA/NJLAD claim— though we do so on the basis that Bassett is unable to demonstrate an injury stemming from the alleged violation. Id. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order of summary judgment on behalf of RAC.