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



Paul Williams worked for ten years for the Township of Lakewood in the Department of Public Works (DPW).  On March 28, 2013, the Township Manager received an anonymous letter concerning Mr. Williams.  The writer said he was a co-worker and that he and other co-workers were in fear of their safety because Williams allegedly exhibited outbursts and tirades on a daily basis. The writer said three union stewards (initials provided for the stewards) witnessed such an outburst that very day.  The writer claimed to have complained to a former Director, and the writer maintained that Williams was a time bomb waiting to explode and that co-workers feared for their safety.

The Township took no action on the letter for eight months.  On December 2, 2013, The Township advised Williams that he must submit to a psychological fitness-for-duty examination, noting that failure to attend the exam would result in disciplinary action.  Williams challenged the examination as not meeting the ADA standard of being “job related and consistent with business necessity,” and he refused to attend the examination.

On December 18, 2013, The Township served Williams with a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action seeking to remove him from employment for failing to report for the fitness-for-duty examination. Williams requested a public hearing, which took place on January 6, 2014. The Township rejected Williams’s argument and then issued a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action terminating his employment. 

Following an appeal, the Office of Administrative Law heard testimony from the DPW Director.  He stated that Williams was sometimes confrontational and sometimes would walk away from someone who tried to speak with him.  The Director stated that he did not fear Williams.  He only wrote up Williams once over many years and never took any prior disciplinary action against Williams.  He further stated that as far as his work, Williams was no different than any other employee.

The Administrative Law Judge reversed the Township’s decision to remove Williams, observing that the Township did not investigate the accuracy of the letter’s allegations against Williams.  The ALJ also found no basis to connect the fitness-for-duty examination with Williams’ work duties.  The ALJ also criticized the Township’s eight month delay in acting on the letter.  Finally, the ALJ said that the Township could not discipline Williams for failing to attend an examination that the Township had no right to require.

Following the decision of the ALJ, the Township filed exceptions and on March 5, 2015, the Civil Service Commission reversed the ALJ’s determination.  However, the Commission did not mention the ADA at all in its reversal but rather focused on the insubordination of Williams in not attending the exam.  The Commission found against removal but imposed a six-month suspension.  Additionally, the Commission ordered that Williams submit to a psychological evaluation. 

On appeal to the Appellate Division, Williams argued that psychological examinations are the same as any other medical examinations in that there must be a showing that the exam is job-related and consistent with business necessity under 42.U.S.C.A. 12112(d)(4)(A).  The Court commented that the EEOC further defined the “job-related and consistent with business necessity” standard as follows:

Generally, a disability-related inquiry or medical examination of an employee may be ‘job-related and consistent with business necessity’ when an employer ‘has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that: (1) an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical condition; or (2) an employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition.’

The Court further drew from 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(r) for the proposition that “direct threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.”  The Court went on to cite to EEOC Guidance that an employer may be given credible evidence by a reliable third party that an employee has a medical condition or the employer may observe symptoms that an employee has a medical condition which impairs job performance or may pose a direct threat of harm to the employee or others.

The problem in this case, according to the Court, was that the Township had no reliable information from a third party (the anonymous letter did not meet the standard without investigation) and had not made independent observations of Williams’ alleged behavioral problems at work.  It said:

In other words, the employer must reasonably believe, either through direct observation or through reliable information received from credible sources, that the employee’s perceived medical condition is affecting his or her work performance or that the employee poses a direct threat.  Then, and only then, may the employer lawfully require the employee to undergo a psychological fitness-for-duty examination.

When information comes from a third party about an employee, the employer should reflect on the EEOC Guidance, which suggests that employers focus on the following: “(1) the relationship of the person providing the information to the employee about whom it is being provided; (2) the seriousness of the medical condition at issue; (3) the possible motivation of the person providing the information; (4) how the person learned the information (e.g., directly from the employee whose medical condition is in question or from someone else); and (5) other evidence that the employer has that bears on the reliability of the information provided.”

In ruling that the Township violated the ADA, the Court noted that there was no objective evidence of any threat posed by Williams and that even the DPW Director stated his performance was satisfactory.  The Court said the anonymous letter was not reliable. The identity of the writer was unknown, and there was no investigated done to confirm the allegations in the letter.    The case was remanded to the Civil Service Commission for a calculation of back pay due to Williams upon his reinstatement to work at the Township.

This case is well reasoned and extremely helpful to employers in dealing with fitness-for-duty issues. Employers should keep this case at their desk when fitness-for-duty examinations are being contemplated because the case provides sensible guidance.  It is among the best cases an employer will read on the rules for fitness-for-duty examinations.

The Appellate Division tried to explain that the Township could have solicited information from the DPW Director and other supervisors regarding Williams’ performance.  That kind of credible information could have satisfied the job-related standard.  Or the Township could have contacted the three union stewards named in the anonymous letter for information on the alleged outbursts that took place.  In other words, the Township had to verify the allegations of the anonymous letter in order to reach a conclusion that the employee may pose a threat to himself or others. In this case, the Township failed to take these steps.  Vague rumors or innuendos about an employee clearly do not suffice under the law to justify a fitness-for-duty examination.  Direct observations by the employer are obviously the best evidence, but evidence from other employees that has been verified can also form the basis for a fitness-for-duty examination under the job-related and consistent with business necessity test.

This case can be found at In the Matter of Paul Williams, Township of Lakewood, 2016N.J.Super. LEXIS 15, (App. Div. January 25, 2016).


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