A New Jersey court has upheld a ruling in favor of Kathleen Markus, a former waitress at Reo Diner, who claimed the diner failed to accommodate her disability. The court's decision, made on October 22, 2026, is significant as it reinforces protections for employees with disabilities under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The ruling also addresses the awarding of attorneys' fees in such cases, which could impact future claims.
The case, docketed as A-2084-24, involved allegations of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and other claims against Reo Diner and its supervisor, Christina Kontos. The court's decision confirms that employers must take reasonable steps to accommodate their employees' disabilities, and it clarifies how attorneys' fees are calculated in these cases.
Markus worked at Reo Diner from July 2015 until her termination in August 2016. She claimed that her employer discriminated against her due to her hyperthyroidism, a condition she argued constituted a disability. After her initial trial in June 2023 resulted in a defense verdict, the court granted her a new trial, which took place in December 2024. This time, the jury found that Reo Diner failed to accommodate her disability and awarded her $19,000 in damages.
Markus's legal battle began when she filed a complaint in January 2017, alleging multiple violations of the LAD, including discrimination based on her perceived disability and retaliation. After the jury's second verdict, Markus sought attorneys' fees and costs, claiming a total of over $540,000 for her legal representation throughout the trials.
The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, including Judges Mayer, Vinci, and Zazzali-Hogan, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision to award Markus $203,989.44 in attorneys' fees and $13,805.27 in costs. The court's opinion emphasized that Markus was the prevailing party, despite not winning on all counts, and it supported the idea that all claims were interrelated.
The court ruled, "Although there was a verdict in the first trial, that verdict was set aside, essentially meaning the case was not disposed of," highlighting the importance of the work done in preparation for both trials. The court also noted that the claims were intertwined and could not be separated, justifying the award of fees for all the work performed.
The ruling also addressed the defendants' argument that the jury should not have considered the failure-to-accommodate claim after finding no discrimination. The court clarified that failure to accommodate is a separate claim from discrimination under the LAD, stating, "Failure to accommodate is a separate, independent claim from disability discrimination." This distinction is crucial for future cases as it underscores the obligation of employers to accommodate employees with disabilities, regardless of other findings.
The decision has broader implications for employees and employers alike, as it reinforces the necessity for workplaces to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities. It also sets a precedent for how attorneys' fees are awarded in discrimination cases, particularly in situations where multiple claims are involved.
Looking ahead, the ruling may influence other pending cases involving disability discrimination and accommodation claims. While the defendants have the option to appeal, the appellate court's thorough examination of the issues may make it challenging to overturn the decision. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder of the legal protections available to employees facing discrimination due to disabilities.