After 20 years of accommodations, frustration boiled over. What the court said matters
A New Jersey appeals court just handed employers a clear message: accommodating workers with disabilities doesn't mean tolerating endless absences without consequences.
In a decision dated February 4, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that frustration over chronic absenteeism is not the same as disability discrimination, even when an employee has received workplace accommodations for more than two decades.
Staci Fleischmann spent over 20 years working for New Jersey's Division of Pensions and Benefits, bouncing between departments as her health issues mounted. She started in 2000 as a pension counselor with Crohn's disease and migraines already affecting her work life. A 2014 car accident added a traumatic brain injury to her medical file.
Throughout her tenure, Fleischmann took medical leaves ranging from one month to a full year. The Division moved her from the call center to withdrawals, then death claims, then purchases, and finally enrollments. Along the way, managers granted her request after request: she could wear slippers instead of dress shoes, avoid lifting more than ten pounds, take breaks every 20 minutes, get extra time to learn new tasks, adjust her workstation lighting, and maintain a regular eating schedule.
But the accommodations didn't solve the underlying tension. Supervisor Luann Barnett grew frustrated with Fleischmann's sporadic attendance and need for continuous retraining after each extended absence, telling an employment relations coordinator in June 2016 that the situation was disruptive to the work unit. In 2010 and again in 2017, the Division formally disciplined her for chronic absenteeism. In 2019, she faced discipline for falsifying medical records.
Fleischmann saw discrimination. In March 2017, she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. She followed up with union grievances asking to transfer away from what she called a hostile work environment. Her supervisors, she claimed, spoke to her in condescending tones, criticized her sick time use, and denied her basic privileges like keeping her cellphone on her desk or stepping away for coffee.
In April 2021, she sued the Division and both supervisors, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.
The trial court disagreed with her claims and granted summary judgment to the defendants in August 2024. Fleischmann appealed.
The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision across the board. On the hostile work environment claim, the judges found that Fleischmann had not shown her supervisors treated her poorly because of her disabilities. Instead, their coldness appeared tied to legitimate workplace concerns about her absences and job performance. The court noted that supervisor rudeness, while unpleasant, does not automatically amount to illegal discrimination.
On accommodations, the court found the Division had gone to great lengths to help Fleischmann stay employed. Every request backed by medical documentation had been granted. The problem, the court found, was not that she couldn't do her job with accommodations. Her own doctors never said her disabilities prevented her from working. They simply noted she might benefit from a transfer away from supervisors whose behavior stressed her out.
That distinction mattered. Under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, employers must accommodate disabilities that affect job performance, not interpersonal conflicts with management.
The retaliation claim failed too. While her supervisors knew about Fleischmann's complaints, knowing about a complaint does not prove retaliation. The court said Fleischmann needed to show her supervisors actually changed their behavior because of her complaints, not just that they remained dissatisfied with her work performance afterward.
The decision carries practical weight for HR teams managing employees with chronic conditions. It confirms that engaging in good faith discussions about accommodations and granting medically supported requests creates strong legal protection, even when the employment relationship deteriorates. It also clarifies that performance management can continue alongside accommodation efforts, provided the criticism relates to legitimate work issues rather than the disability itself.
For employers walking the tightrope between supporting workers and maintaining productivity standards, the case offers reassurance that doing the right thing on accommodations provides meaningful legal cover when relationships sour.
