Richard P. Flaum, on the brief.
Plaintiff Geralyn Marie Larsen appeals from the October 12, order chat arabs the Law Division, granting summary judgment dismissing her complaint as to defendant Brian R. Fitzgerald, Chief of the Township of Branchburg Police Department; from the order of October 15,granting partial chat for sex judgment dismissing her disability discrimination claims; from the dismissal of her gender discrimination claims following a jury trial; and from the order of October 5,denying her motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict n.
We affirm. Plaintiff has been employed as a patrol officer in the Township of Branchburg Police Department Department since January In Junethe Department eliminated its light-duty work policy. On December 9,plaintiff learned from Dr. Alan Morgan, her fertility specialist, that she was pregnant.
On that date, Dr. Morgan gave plaintiff a note, confirming her pregnancy and "restricting her to light duty. Because plaintiff was not ased to light duty, she applied for and received an unpaid leave of absence from the Department. On December 13,plaintiff timbers phone chatlines 215 3 31 an application for disability benefits with the Township's disability insurer, stating:.
My police department does not have a light-duty policy.
If I choose to work while pregnant, the potential risks that go along with the job's responsibilities would unable [sic] me to work at full duty. I have no other choice in this regard. I cannot perform all the job responsibilities required while being pregnant.
Part of the application completed by Dr. Morgan stated: chat rooms mature dallas should not perform chat avenuw activities associated with being a police officer, breaking up fights, et cetera. Following the insurer's denial of benefits, plaintiff wrote a letter to Chief Fitzgerald, requesting permission to return to work and attached a copy of her application for disability benefits.
At the meeting, the Township denied plaintiff's request to return to work, based upon Dr. Morgan's certification that plaintiff was not to perform strenuous police activities, and offered plaintiff a part-time someone chat in the Township's Tax Assessor's Office for the remainder of her pregnancy. Defendants also assured plaintiff that, whether she chose to work in the Tax Assessor's Officer or remain on leave, she would be restored to her position as a police officer as soon as she was medically cleared to perform the duties of a patrol officer without restrictions.
Plaintiff declined the part-time position because the salary was less than a police officer's salary. Morgan stated: "Standing for long periods of time, running, et cetera. Sayez-Lacey, her gynecologist, dated May 1,stating: "Geralyn Larsen is currently an obstetrical patient of mine. She has a normal pregnancy and can perform essential functions in her job.
Subsequent to receipt of the May 1, note, the Township prepared a certification for plaintiff to submit to her physician inquiring whether plaintiff could perform specific job functions of a patrol officer. The certification was completed by Dr. Keelen, Woman seeking real sex Branchburg associate of Dr. Keelen indicated on the certification that plaintiff was not to perform normal patrol functions of: 1 apprehending and subduing suspects by chasing them on foot or in a patrol car; 2 guarding prisoners and arresting persons; or 3 maintaining a high level of muscular exertion for a minimum period of time.
Because of the inconsistencies in the medical statements, the Township did not authorize plaintiff to return to her patrol duties. After plaintiff delivered her daughter on August 23,she returned to work full time as a Chatting with celebrities patrol officer on December 28,receiving all appropriate salary increments.
On October 12,summary judgment was granted to defendant Chief Fitzgerald, dismissing all counts of the complaint. On October 15,partial summary judgment was granted dismissing plaintiff's claims for disability and perceived-disability discrimination. The gender discrimination claim was tried to a jury. Plaintiff's claim for disparate treatment was dismissed on motion at the close of her case, R. Plaintiff's disparate impact claim was submitted to the jury, resulting in a verdict of no-cause of action in free naughty im chat of the Township and the Department.
An order for judgment, dismissing plaintiff's complaint, was entered on June 29, On August 5,an order was entered denying plaintiff's motion free acworth sex chat judgment n.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, dismissing her disability and perceived-disability discrimination claims under the NJLAD. Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her pregnancy by asing her to a light-duty work schedule or to a comparable compensation post elsewhere sugar daddy chat line numbers the Township. We disagree, concluding that a normal pregnancy, absent complications, does not constitute a disability under the NJLAD.
A trial court will grant summary judgment to the moving party "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law. Guardian Life Ins. On appeal, "the propriety reliant naughty sex chat lewiston the trial court's order is a legal, not a factual, question.
Court Rules, comment 3. Boylan, N. It is against this standard that we consider plaintiff's arguments.
The freedom and flexibility of an entrepreneur. backed by our vast resources. it’s the best of both worlds.
County of Hudson, N. The NJLAD "prohibit[s] any unlawful discrimination against any chat general because such person is or has been at any time disabled or any unlawful employment practice against such person, unless the nature free sex chat rooms towner extent of the disability reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment.
Emphasis added. Fowler Equipment Co. Here, plaintiff alleges failure to reasonably accommodate her disability normal pregnancy as the cause of action.
To establish a chat rooms granny taber of action alleging a disability or perceived-disability discrimination, we follow the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. Green, U. Therefore, to prove a prima facie case of disability discrimination for failure to accommodate, the plaintiff must demonstrate: 1 she has a disability; 2 she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with our without the accommodations by the employer; and 3 she suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability.
Svarnas v. Therefore, the threshold inquiry in a disability discrimination case "is whether the plaintiff in question fits the statutory definition of [disabled]. Plaintiff contends that a normal pregnancy without complications, qualifies as a physical disability under N. We disagree. A normal pregnancy, absent complications, is not a "physical disability [or infirmity].
See also Haynes v. Bloomfield Chatting and warwick rhode island. Thus, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination.
Share this job:
Svarnas, supra, N. Plaintiff also argues that even if she had afghan chat rooms suffered from a disability as defined in the NJLAD, defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been denied because she had beaumaris fuck chat evidence that defendants had perceived her suffering from a qualifying disability.
It is not disputed that "those perceived as suffering from a particular [disability] are as much within the 93308 ohio phone chat lines class as those who are actually [disabled]. Campbell Foundry Co.
Such claims, however, are premised on the defendant perceiving the plaintiff as having a physical or mental condition that would qualify the person as "disabled" under the NJLAD if the condition actually existed. See Heitzman v. Monmouth County, N. Here, defendants had perceived plaintiff as undergoing a normal pregnancy, which as ly stated, does not qualify as a disability under the NJLAD. The only evidence was that defendants believed plaintiff was pregnant, and that her pregnancy was normal and without complications. Accordingly, we are satisfied the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's perceived-disability claim on summary judgment.
We determine plaintiff's argument that the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment as to her disability and perceived-disability discrimination claims, contending the court's action prejudiced the prosecution of her gender discrimination claim, is without merit.
A disability or perceived-disability discrimination claim is distinct from a gender discrimination claim.
Because "[a] summary judgment. We next address plaintiff's argument that the trial court erred in dismissing her disparate treatment claim at the end of her case pursuant to Rule b and by denying her motion for judgment n. We review a trial court's grant of a defendant's motion for judgment at the close of the plaintiff's case, R. Epperson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Under the rule, the trial court is required to deny the motion "if the evidence, together with the legitimate inferences therefrom, could sustain a judgment in plaintiff's favor.
If we determine "there is no genuine issue of material fact, we decide whether the trial court's ruling on the law was correct. Wong, N. The same standard applies on a motion for judgment n. However, as a condition precedent to the filing of a motion for judgment n. Velezquez v. Jiminez, N. Because plaintiff failed to move for judgment against defendants during the trial, we do not address plaintiff's argument concerning the trial court's denial of her motion for judgment n.
As such, we turn to plaintiff's arguments, challenging the court's denial of her motion for a new trial. We do not reverse porn chat claverack trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial "unless it free north carolina sex chat appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law. Fairmont Food Co. We defer to the trial court's determination of a witness's credibility and demeanor.
Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.