401 N.J. Super. 596 - Victor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 district · 8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When an employee seeks an accommodation for a disability, the employer is required to engage in an interactive process as part of a good faith effort to identify the precise limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. A failure to accommodate is demonstrated when the employer fails to engage in this interactive process in good faith. Moreover, when a disabled employee requests an accommodation and the employer contends that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s business, the employer has the burden of proving that the requested accommodation would constitute an undue burden on the employer’s business.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Victor v. State

2. “that an employer's adverse employment action must rise above something that makes an employee unhappy, resentful or otherwise cause an incidental workplace dissatisfaction. Clearly, actions that affect wages, benefits, or result in direct economic harm qualify. So too, noneconomic actions that cause a significant, non-temporary adverse change in employment status or the terms and conditions of employment would suffice. We recognize an exhaustive list of qualifying events cannot be compiled and these determinations must turn on the facts and circumstances presented. [ Victor , 401 N.J. Super. at 616 , 952 A.2d 493 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 459 N.J. Super. 400 - Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ.

3. “I believe that the jury charge was correct and it’s consistent with New Jersey law. In my view ... if you prove failure to accommodate, that failure is in and of itself an adverse employment action. I mean the case law doesn’t say that specifically but to me that’s implicit in the failure to accommodate charge. If you don’t accommodate someone, that is an adverse action to them if they can prove all the elements of failure to accommodate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Victor v. State