A custodian who had worked at a New Jersey public school district for more than ten years was summoned to a meeting where he was pressured to retire. After he declined, the district began issuing performance write-ups the client believed were fabricated to justify termination. When he was subsequently diagnosed with cancer and requested light duty work upon returning from treatment, the district told him it could not accommodate his restrictions and told him to remain on sick leave. After being told he no longer had a job and had been replaced, he submitted retirement paperwork believing he had no other choice. The attorneys at Mark | Kleinfeldt have reached out to the district demanding restitution for violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The client was hired as a custodian at a New Jersey public school district in January 2014. He enjoyed his work and had been there more than ten years when he was summoned, without explanation, to a meeting with the district's business administrator and building and grounds supervisor. In that meeting, the business administrator urged him to retire, telling him he was at retirement age and should go home, work in his garden, and enjoy the rest of his life. Although a union representative was present at the meeting, that representative was not identified to him. Despite English being his second language, no translator was provided. Feeling pressured and without representation, he nonetheless stated his intention to keep working, telling them he might consider retirement in a few years if it felt right for him and his family.
After declining to retire, he began receiving performance write-ups he believed were designed to create a paper trail to support terminating his employment. He was reprimanded for not using his walkie talkie, even though those devices were often not in working order and he had been directed to communicate via cell phone. He was written up for leaving doors open, which had never previously been a concern and was something he generally remedied when a custodial contractor habitually left them open.
His daughter-in-law wrote to the business administrator on his behalf, stating that the meeting had been inappropriate and the performance complaints baseless. The business administrator responded by praising him as a great, hard-working employee against whom she had no complaints, and stating that the written communications he had received were not "write-ups" but merely issues expressed in written form. She also stated that the purpose of their meeting had been "to address issues and to explore ways to support you in your role." This response caused him additional anxiety about his job security. He reached out to his union representative for help, writing: "I am not only afraid to lose my job because I feel like I am being targeted and discriminated against, but I am being disrespected, causing emotional, psychological, and physical abuse to my physical health. I don't want this behavior to continue from the upper management. I just want to do my job in peace and harmony."
Two months later, he was hospitalized and diagnosed with cancer. He underwent emergency surgery and three months of chemotherapy. Although he had requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for this period, the district placed him on administrative leave until December, which was applied to his sick time.
After completing his course of treatment, he attempted to return to work in October 2024. He provided a doctor's note clearing him for light duty work as of October 8, with restrictions on heavy lifting, excessive physical exertion, prolonged standing or walking, and repetitive bending, twisting, or reaching for approximately one month. He reached out to the building and grounds supervisor about returning. The supervisor summoned him to a meeting at his office with the superintendent and the business administrator. He attended believing the purpose was to discuss his return to work. Again, no translator was provided and no union representative was present. The business administrator told him the district could not accommodate his light duty restrictions and that he should continue his sick leave.
He followed up with an email stating that since the district could not accommodate him, he was requesting FMLA leave after his contractual sick leave was exhausted, and noting that he would be forced to retire once his FMLA leave ran out if the district would not consider accommodations. In an effort to protect his job, he showed up on site and attempted to work several times but was always sent home.
At the end of October, he provided an updated medical note authorizing FMLA leave from December until early March. The district's response was that he no longer had a job and had been replaced. He had not been officially fired, so believing he had no other choice, he submitted retirement paperwork to protect his income.