In Stewart v. County of Salem, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50410 (D.N.J. 2017), the plaintiff was a corrections officer who fractured an ankle and was unable to walk or a stand for a full day. The court’s decision makes clear that under both the ADA and NJLAD, employees will be given a generous interpretation of what a disability is and what type of accomodations are required.

To state a prima facie cause of action for disability discrimination, the employee must show the following: (1) the employee was disabled; (2) she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations by the employer; and (3) she has suffered an otherwise adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination. Id. Disability discrimination encompasses not only adverse actions motivated by prejudice and fear of disabilities, but also includes failing to make reasonable accommodations for a plaintiff’s disabilities.

Under the ADA, “disability” means “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” having “a record of such an impairment,” or “being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). “Major life activities” include walking and standing. Id. § 12102(2)(A). The disability must “limit[ ] the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” Id. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).

The NJLAD defines “disability” as physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement which is caused by bodily injury . . . which shall include, but not be limited to, . . . lack of physical coordination, . . . resulting from anatomical . . . physiological . . . conditions which prevents the normal exercise of any bodily . . . functions or is demonstrable, medically . . . by accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques. . . .” N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(q).

What constitutes a disability must be construed broadly under both the ADA and NJLAD. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i) (“Substantially limits” “shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage” and “is not meant to be a demanding standard.”); Viscik v. Fowler Equipment Co., 800 A.2d 826, 835 (N.J. 2002) (“The term ‘handicapped’ in LAD is not restricted to ‘severe’ or ‘immutable’ disabilities and has been interpreted as significantly broader than the analogous provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”); cf. Kieffer v. CPR Restoration & Cleaning Service, LLC, F. Supp. 3d , 2016 WL 4119842, at *8 n.9 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (explaining that Congress substantially modified the ADA in 2008 via the ADA Amendments Act (“ADAAA”), and the ADAAA lowered the standard for finding a disability under the ADA).