Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Svarnas v. AT & T COMMUNICATIONSgreen2 sentences2012The second is the case in which an employer, rather than defending on the grounds that the employee was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, proffers the employee’s inability to perform the job as a defense. [ Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 19-20 , 800 A.2d 826 (citations omitted); see also Soules v. Mount Holiness Mem’l Park, 354 N.J.Super. 569, 571 , 808 A.2d 863 (App.Div. 2002); Svarnas v. AT & T Commc’ns, 326 N.J.Super. 59, 74-75 , 740 A.2d 662 (App.Div.1999).] Plaintiff did not allege a cause of action based upon a failure to accommodate her disability. 2012The second is the case in which an employer, rather than defending on the grounds that the employee was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, proffers the employee’s inability to perform the job as a defense. [ Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 19-20 , 800 A.2d 826 (citations omitted); see also Soules v. Mount Holiness Mem’l Park, 354 N.J.Super. 569, 571 , 808 A.2d 863 (App.Div. 2002); Svarnas v. AT & T Commc’ns, 326 N.J.Super. 59, 74-75 , 740 A.2d 662 (App.Div.1999).] Plaintiff did not allege a cause of action based upon a failure to accommodate her disability. | 1 | 2 |
Webb v. City of Philadelphiagreen1 sentence2021Where a 12 Petitioner claims that to support a prima facie case of "failure to accommodate based on religious beliefs, [an] employee must show[:] . . . [(1)] they hold a sincere religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement, . . . [(2)] they informed their employer of the conflict, and . . . [(3)] they were disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting requirement." To support this proposition, petitioner cites to Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256, 259 (3rd Cir. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Linda Tisby v. Camden County Correctional Facilitygreen1 sentence2021However, the standard proffered by petitioner differs from the standard we articulated in Tisby v. Camden County Correctional Facility, 448 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Soules v. Mount Holiness Mem. Parkgreen2 sentences2012The second is the case in which an employer, rather than defending on the grounds that the employee was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, proffers the employee’s inability to perform the job as a defense. [ Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 19-20 , 800 A.2d 826 (citations omitted); see also Soules v. Mount Holiness Mem’l Park, 354 N.J.Super. 569, 571 , 808 A.2d 863 (App.Div. 2002); Svarnas v. AT & T Commc’ns, 326 N.J.Super. 59, 74-75 , 740 A.2d 662 (App.Div.1999).] Plaintiff did not allege a cause of action based upon a failure to accommodate her disability. 2012The second is the case in which an employer, rather than defending on the grounds that the employee was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, proffers the employee’s inability to perform the job as a defense. [ Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 19-20 , 800 A.2d 826 (citations omitted); see also Soules v. Mount Holiness Mem’l Park, 354 N.J.Super. 569, 571 , 808 A.2d 863 (App.Div. 2002); Svarnas v. AT & T Commc’ns, 326 N.J.Super. 59, 74-75 , 740 A.2d 662 (App.Div.1999).] Plaintiff did not allege a cause of action based upon a failure to accommodate her disability. | 1 | 1 |
Board of Education v. Englewood Teachers Ass'ngreen2 sentences2002Board of Ed. of City of Englewood v. Englewood Teachers Ass'n, 64 N.J. 1, 5-6, 8 , 311 A.2d 729 (1973). 2002Board of Ed. of City of Englewood v. Englewood Teachers Ass'n, 64 N.J. 1, 5-6, 8 , 311 A.2d 729 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Linn v. Beneficial Commercial Corp.green2 sentences1997Compare Linn v. Beneficial Commercial Corp., 226 N.J.Super. 74, 80 , 543 A.2d 954 (App.Div.1988). 1997Compare Linn v. Beneficial Commercial Corp., 226 N.J.Super. 74, 80 , 543 A.2d 954 (App.Div.1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Viscik v. Fowler Equipment Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2012The second is the case in which an employer, rather than defending on the grounds that the employee was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, proffers the employee’s inability to perform the job as a defense. [ Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 19-20 , 800 A.2d 826 (citations omitted); see also Soules v. Mount Holiness Mem’l Park, 354 N.J.Super. 569, 571 , 808 A.2d 863 (App.Div. 2002); Svarnas v. AT & T Commc’ns, 326 N.J.Super. 59, 74-75 , 740 A.2d 662 (App.Div.1999).] Plaintiff did not allege a cause of action based upon a failure to accommodate her disability. 2012The second is the case in which an employer, rather than defending on the grounds that the employee was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, proffers the employee’s inability to perform the job as a defense. [ Viscik, supra, 173 N.J. at 19-20 , 800 A.2d 826 (citations omitted); see also Soules v. Mount Holiness Mem’l Park, 354 N.J.Super. 569, 571 , 808 A.2d 863 (App.Div. 2002); Svarnas v. AT & T Commc’ns, 326 N.J.Super. 59, 74-75 , 740 A.2d 662 (App.Div.1999).] Plaintiff did not allege a cause of action based upon a failure to accommodate her disability. | 2 | 2002–2012 |
Pilkington v. BALLY'S PARK PLACE
green
1 sentence2003There may indeed be instances in which "one case [of waiver] of a purported job requirement [may be sufficient] to demonstrate that it was not a genuine, objective measure of qualification for the position." Ibid. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pollara v. POLICE. & FIRE. RETIRE. SYS. TRUSTEES
green
2 sentences2000Further, additional language in Pollara is supportive of petitioner's position in this case. "[She] was required by [her] employment to be in the [school] before [her] shift began and [she] was required to [have all media materials in place] when the [8:45] bell rang; climbing the stairs [to the school door] was a `necessary maneuver' which was as much a job requirement as was actual attendance [in school at 8:45]." Ibid. 2000Further, additional language in Pollara is supportive of petitioner’s position in this case. “[She] was required by [her] employment to be in the [school] before [her] shift began and [she] was required to [have all media materials in place] when the [8:45] bell rang; climbing the stairs [to the school door] was a ‘necessary maneuver’ which was as much a job requirement as was actual attendance [in school at 8:45].” Ibid. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Branti v. Finkel
green
2 sentences1981The Appellate Division’s analysis differed somewhat from the trial court’s since the Appellate Division had the benefit of the United States Supreme Court opinion in Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 , 100 S.Ct. 1287 , 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), decided after the lower court’s opinion. 1981The Appellate Division’s analysis differed somewhat from the trial court’s since the Appellate Division had the benefit of the United States Supreme Court opinion in Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 , 100 S.Ct. 1287 , 63 L.Ed.2d 574 (1980), decided after the lower court’s opinion. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.