On January 17, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court rendered its decision in my ongoing litigation with the New Jersey State Police.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
BRIAN ROYSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE
and JOSEPH R. FUENTES,
075926
Decided: January 17, 2017
JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE SOLOMON's opinion. JUSTICE ALBIN filed a separate, partially CONCURRING and partially DISSENTING opinion, in which CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER joins.Michael J. Reimer argued the cause for appellant. Michael C. Walters, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, and Ralph R. Smith, III, of counsel, Mr. Smith, Benjamin H. Zieman, Deputy Attorney General, and Laurel B. Peltzman, on the briefs).
In this appeal, we are called upon to determine whether the New Jersey State Police (NJSP), by waiting to assert the defense of sovereign immunity until a jury verdict was returned against it in this discrimination action, either waived through its litigation conduct or is estopped from asserting the defense of sovereign immunity.
Plaintiff Brian Royster filed a complaint against his employer, the NJSP, alleging several racial and disability discrimination claims. Plaintiff asserted that the NJSP failed to make reasonable accommodations for his disabling medical condition -- ulcerative colitis -– in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42, and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213. In addition, plaintiff complained of retaliatory conduct in violation of the LAD, ADA, and New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14.
At the close of plaintiff's case, the trial court categorically dismissed all of the LAD claims as precluded by CEPA's waiver provision, N.J.S.A. 34:19-8. Following summation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on the remaining ADA and CEPA claims. The NJSP subsequently moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, invoking sovereign immunity to bar plaintiff's ADA claim. The trial court denied the motion and found that defendant was estopped from asserting sovereign immunity after the jury's verdict.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that sovereign immunity can be raised at any time, even after a trial has concluded. The panel also rejected the notion that the NJSP was estopped from asserting or waived the defense of sovereign immunity through its litigation conduct.
We agree with the Appellate Division that sovereign immunity precludes plaintiff's ADA claim. We conclude, however, that his LAD claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodations was improvidently dismissed. As a result, we reinstate the LAD claim and remand to the trial court with instructions to mold the jury's verdict and enter judgment on plaintiff's LAD claim in favor of plaintiff and against the NJSP in the amount of $500,000.
If you are interested in all of the facts, please view the attached article with the full details.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1765832.html
