State News : New Jersey

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.

NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.  

Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.

Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.

New Jersey



Mark Richardson worked for the Chicago Transit Authority as a Bus Operator from 1999 to 2012.  He took an extended medical leave from work and attempted to return to his job in September 2010.  The Authority sent plaintiff for a fitness exam, and the doctor cleared Richardson to return to work. He was next required to submit to a safety assessment, which he contended turned out to be different than the normal safety assessment required of bus operators.

The Authority eventually rejected Plaintiff’s request to return to work.  Plaintiff then filed a charge with the EEOC, stating that the Authority discriminated against him based his disability, namely severe obesity.  After the parties were not able to resolve the charge, plaintiff sued in federal court.

Defendant Transit Authority moved to dismiss the case right away before doing any discovery by arguing that the plaintiff’s complaint was fatally flawed.  The Authority argued that obesity is not a disability unless it is due to a physiological disorder and further contended that since plaintiff never alleged that there was a physiological basis for his obesity, his complaint must be dismissed.

The Court noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 expanded coverage under the ADA.  The Court reflected on 42 U.S.C. 12102(3)(A), which states:

An individual is ‘regarded as having such an impairment’ if the individual is subjected to a prohibited action because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not that impairment substantially limits, or is perceived to substantially limit, a major life activity.

The Court also reviewed conflicting decisions nationally on the question of whether a plaintiff must prove a physiological basis for obesity to establish a disability.  It observed that there is a split among Circuit Courts on what is required for obesity to be considered a covered disability.  Some Circuit Courts have required proof of a physiological basis for obesity while others have not.

In this case the Court did not decide which approach was right, but it said that “[e]ven if Plaintiff is ultimately required to prove that his obesity was caused by a physiological disorder, he was not required to allege the same.”  In other words, plaintiff’s complaint was sufficient to allow him to move forward with discovery and to attempt to prove his case.

The case can be found at Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143485 (N.D. Ill. 2016).  It is an interesting case because obesity claims are likely to become a major area of litigation given both the near epidemic levels of obesity in the United States and the expansion of coverage of disability under the ADAAA.



John H. Geaney, Esq., is an Executive Committee Member and a Shareholder in Capehart Scatchard's Workers’ Compensation Group.  Mr. Geaney concentrates his practice in the representation of employers, self-insured companies, third-party administrators, and insurance carriers in workers’ compensation, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. Should you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Mr. Geaney at 856.914.2063 or by e‑mail at