N.J. Stat. » Title 10 — CIVIL RIGHTS

N.J. Stat. § 10:5-4.1

Construction of act

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2. All of the provisions of the act to which this act is a supplement shall be construed to prohibit any unlawful discrimination against any person because such person is or has been at any time disabled or any unlawful employment practice against such person, unless the nature and extent of the disability reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment. It shall be unlawful discrimination under the "Law Against Discrimination," P.L.1945, c.169 (C.10:5-1 et seq.) to discriminate against any buyer or renter because of the disability of a person residing in or intending to reside in a dwelling after it is sold, rented or made available or because of any person associated with the buyer or renter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 87 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Maryanne Grande v. Saint Clare’s Health System (076606) (Morris County and Statewide)
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maryanne Grande v. Saint Clare’s Health System (076606) (Morris County and Statewide) (2017) nj · cites it 11× “Nearly a year after her discharge, Grande filed a two-count complaint against Saint Clare’s, alleging violations of N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1, a subsection of the LAD.”
Rich v. State (2018) njd · cites it 2× “" N.J.S.A. § 10:5-4.1. The elements of an NJLAD claim vary based on the cause of action alleged.”
Ronald Chisolm v. Patrick McManimon Jr., Director of Mercer County Detention Center Mercer County Court, United States o (2001) ca3 · cites it 2× “§ 1983 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. § 10:5-4.1 (NJLAD). Because we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact, we will reverse the granting of summary judgment by the District Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent…”
Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services (2001) njd · cites it 2× “See N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 10:5-4.1 and 10:5-12.”
Richard Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Company (2004) ca3 “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-4.1 . Further, the New Jersey Administrative Code requires that an “employer must make a reasonable accommodation to the limitations of an employee or applicant who is a person with a disability, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation…”
D.G. v. Somerset Hills School District (2008) njd · cites it 2× “N.J.S.A. § 10:5-4.1. The New Jersey Administrative Code contains provisions implementing the NJLAD “as it pertains to owners, lessees, proprietors, managers, superintendents, agents or employees of any place of public accommodation.”
Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. (2019) njsuperctappdiv · cites it 2× “10:5-12(a), "unless the nature and extent of the disability reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment," N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1 ; see also N.”
Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc. (2007) ca3 “See N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1. The District Court held that Sarnowski could not demonstrate that he was disabled under the LAD because he did not *404 present expert medical evidence, indicating that a handicap existed.”
Morris v. Siemens Components, Inc. (1996) njd · cites it 4× “…“unless the nature and extent of the handicap reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment.” N.J.S.A. § 10:5-4.1. See Kube v. New Penn Motor Express, Inc., <a href="/opinion/1506130/kube-v-new-penn-motor-express-inc/#228" aria-description="Citation for…”
Kube v. New Penn Motor Express, Inc. (1994) njd · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs Handicap Discrimination Claim Defendant contends that plaintiffs claim for handicap discrimination under the NJLAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1, is pre-empted by § 301 of the LMRA because analysis of such claim is intertwined with the parties’ rights under the collective…”
John Olson v. General Electric Astrospace AKA Martin-Marrietta Astrospace (1996) ca3 “N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1. The LAD thus uses the term “handicap” as opposed to “disability”.”
DAVID F. CALABOTTA VS. PHIBRO ANIMAL HEALTH CORPORATION (L-1979-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (2019) njsuperctappdiv “" N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1. Although the NJLAD does not expressly set forth a cause of action for discrimination based upon a plaintiff&#x27;s association with a member of a protected class, case law has recognized the viability of such an associational claim under the statute.”
Show all 87 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.