A dispute over workplace accommodations during the Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a legal challenge, with a former employee alleging that her employer failed to provide reasonable adjustments for her disability and retaliated against her when she sought protection under state law. The complaint was filed by Mary Jo Reid in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, against the Summit Board of Education and two administrators, Robert Gardella and Doreen Babis. The Appellate Division issued its decision on April 2, 2026.
According to court documents, Mary Jo Reid worked for eight years as a Board-Certified Behavioral Analyst for the Summit Board of Education. Her responsibilities included frequent interaction with special needs children and physical intervention during behavioral episodes. In July 2020, amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the Board announced plans to resume in-person learning for the 2020-21 school year. Human Resources Director Robert Gardella sent a letter to employees outlining available accommodations and medical leave options but noted that fully remote work requests would likely not be granted.
Reid reported having respiratory conditions that made her vulnerable to severe illness if exposed to Covid-19. Supported by documentation from her doctors, she requested permission to continue working remotely. While initially reluctant, the Board offered several accommodations: allowing most work to be performed remotely from an on-site office; providing protective equipment such as face shields and N95 masks; implementing daily temperature checks for students; installing acrylic dividers where six-foot spacing was not possible; and exploring classroom cameras so Reid could observe from another location within the building.
Despite these measures, Reid continued to seek full remote work status. After further medical submissions from her doctors, she was permitted to begin the school year working remotely. However, in October 2020, several incidents occurred at school requiring staff members other than Reid—who was offsite—to physically intervene with students experiencing behavioral challenges. This led Gardella to inform Reid on October 29 that discussions about returning to in-person work needed to resume due to increased demand for onsite services.
On November 11, 2020, Gardella formally withdrew Reid’s remote work accommodation after determining she could not perform essential job functions remotely. He clarified that this decision was unrelated to her skills or professionalism but based on operational needs. When Reid cited additional health risks concerning her husband’s cancer treatment and asked for reconsideration, defendants rescinded only part of her accommodation but maintained earlier offers for partial onsite adjustments.
Following this development, Reid retained legal counsel and began taking unauthorized sick leave totaling 36.5 days without submitting formal medical leave requests or supporting documentation. Defendants advised both Reid and her attorney that time off would remain unauthorized until proper procedures were followed.
In January 2021, after communicating further health concerns through Babis (Director of Special Education Services), Reid unilaterally worked remotely without approval before starting what she described as medical leave on January 19—again without official application or approval. On January 20, Gardella issued a formal reprimand citing unauthorized absences and reminded Reid about required leave application processes under relevant laws such as the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Reid notified defendants on February 9 of her intention to retire effective March 1 but postponed retirement until May at their request while seeking paid disability leave up until then—a request denied due to lack of formal application. She was instructed to return onsite by March 12 with prior accommodations or risk being considered as having abandoned her position; when she did not report for duty on that date, she was terminated.
On March 26, after termination had occurred and following months of communication about leave procedures, Reid submitted—for the first time—a doctor’s certification requesting FMLA leave retroactively from January through May. This certification was dated after her termination.
Reid filed suit on July 2, 2021 alleging violations under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD), including disability discrimination (failure to accommodate), retaliation for asserting protected rights under LAD, aiding and abetting by individual administrators, hostile work environment claims, and seeking punitive damages.
Defendants moved for summary judgment in August 2024 arguing that plaintiff failed to establish basic elements required under LAD statutes: namely that she could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation; that adverse actions were motivated by discriminatory intent; or that any conduct rose to a level constituting a hostile environment.
The trial court agreed with defendants’ arguments across all claims:
– On disability discrimination/failure-to-accommodate: The court found plaintiff could not perform essential duties—such as physical intervention—remotely nor did evidence show adverse action was based on disability rather than operational necessity.
– On retaliation: The court determined there was no evidence actions taken were retaliatory rather than legitimate responses related to job performance expectations and absence policies.
– On hostile work environment: The court found insufficient proof of severe or pervasive conduct directed at plaintiff based on protected status.
– On aiding/abetting: With no underlying violation established against primary defendants’ actions under LAD standards, this claim also failed.
After losing at trial level—and upon denial of reconsideration due to lack of new evidence or genuine factual disputes—Reid appealed these rulings. The Appellate Division reviewed each argument de novo (from scratch) using standards set forth in New Jersey case law but affirmed all findings made by the lower court.
The appellate opinion emphasized that while broad protections exist under LAD—including coverage for various disabilities—the ability (or willingness) of an employee to perform essential job functions remains central when evaluating accommodation disputes. It also reiterated procedural requirements regarding timely submission of medical documentation when seeking protected leaves under state or federal law.
Attorneys representing Mary Jo Reid were Evan L. Goldman and Kristen Ragon from Goldman Davis Krumholz & Dillon PC; attorneys representing Summit Board of Education were Eric L. Harrison from Methfessel & Werbel. The case is identified as Docket No. A-1490-24.
Source: A149024_Mary_Jo_Reid_v_Summit_Board_of_Education_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
