Recently in Scheuer v. RMTS, LLC, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 84 (App. Div. Jan. 21, 2025), the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed significant workplace legal issues including wrongful termination, retaliation, failure to accommodate and disability discrimination, and gives guidance to trial courts as to how such disputes should be handled. In Scheuer, the Plaintiff was a former claims analyst at RMTS and claimed that her firing during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic violated public policy and her rights under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Her claims raised questions about how employees can assert their workplace rights, particularly in times of national crisis, and what evidence is necessary to prove allegations of discrimination or retaliation.
In 2018, Collen Scheuer began working for RMTS and her employment was terminated in March 2020, shortly after she and other employees sent an email to company management expressing concerns about workplace safety caused by the COVID-19 virus and requested to work from home. Scheuer and her colleagues cited health risks associated with the pandemic and emphasized their ability to perform their job duties remotely. However, RMTS management viewed the email as an act of insubordination arguing that it challenged their authority during a rapidly changing pandemic environment. RMTS terminated Scheuer immediately after receiving the email prompting her to file a lawsuit. Scheuer alleged that her termination was discriminatory in violation of the LAD and retaliatory in violation of state public policy because RTS claiming the company failed to accommodate her disabilities—obesity and generalized anxiety disorder—and that her firing was a violation of public policy. The trial court disagreed and dismissed Scheuer’s Complaint by granting RMTS’s motion for summary judgment. Scheuer appealed.
On appeal, Scheuer’s first claim rooted in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. 84 N.J. 58, 72 (1980), argued that her termination violated a clear mandate of public policy. Scheuer relied on Governor Murphy’s executive orders and federal guidance issued during the pandemic, which she argued supported remote work as a means of mitigating health risks. However, the Appellate Court found no clear legal or regulatory mandate existed at the time of Scheuer’s termination requiring RMTS to transition to remote work. The appellate court found that Governor Murphy’s executive orders issued in early March 2020 focused on creating a task force and declaring a public health emergency but did not compel non-essential businesses to provide their workforces with remote work. The Appellate Court emphasized that for a public policy claim to succeed the alleged violation must be based on a clear and firmly grounded mandate, which was not present in this case. Consequently, the Appellate Court dismissed her claim of wrongful termination based on New Jersey public policy.
Scheuer also alleged that her termination violated the LAD’s protections against disability discrimination. She argued that her obesity and generalized anxiety disorder qualified as disabilities under the LAD and that these conditions placed her at a higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19. The LAD broadly defines disabilities to include physical or psychological conditions that impair normal bodily functions or significantly limit major life activities. However, the Appellate Court found that Scheuer failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support her claims. Specifically, her obesity was not linked to a medically recognized condition, and her anxiety disorder was not backed by any medical records or documentation.
Another key component of Scheuer’s case was her claim that RMTS failed to accommodate her disabilities. The LAD requires employers to explore in good faith reasonable accommodations once an employee makes a formal request for assistance due to a disability. However, the appellate court found no evidence that Scheuer made such a request. Her email to management was deemed a general expression of concern about workplace safety during the pandemic rather than a specific request tied to her disabilities.
Finally, Scheuer argued that her termination was a pretext for retaliation and discrimination in violation of the LAD suggesting her email to management about workplace safety was the real reason for her firing. Nonetheless, the Appellate Court concluded that RMTS provided a legitimate non-discriminatory explanation for her termination. Specifically, RMTS maintained that her email undermined management’s authority during a time of uncertainty and was viewed as insubordination. RMTS also pointed out how it had contingency plans for remote work but had not yet determined it necessary to close the office at the time of Scheuer’s termination. Accepting RMTS’s arguments the appellate court concluded that Scheuer failed to present evidence that RMTS’s nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her employment was pretextual or motivated by discriminatory intent, and therefore, her claim was dismissed.
Scheuer underscores the importance of documenting disability-related concerns and formally requesting reasonable accommodation for disability if needed. General expressions of concern about health or safety may not be enough to invoke legal protections unless they are tied to recognized disabilities or specific legal mandates. Additionally, medical evidence often plays a critical role in establishing claims under the LAD.
If you believe you are or have been a victim of unlawful workplace discrimination you are urged to call the attorneys at Mashel Law (732) 536-6161 or fill out the contact form on this page for immediate help. Mashel Law, located in Marlboro, New Jersey, is dedicated to protecting the rights of its employees.