Shelley Pritchett began her career as a Corrections Officer at the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Center (JJC) in 2006. In June 2011, she broke up a fight between two inmates, resulting in significant injuries to her back, knee, and neck. Pritchett went on Workers’ Compensation leave and began medical treatment. Several months later, her physician reviewed an MRI of her spine, and suspected that she was suffering from the early stages of multiple sclerosis (MS), unrelated to her work injuries. In September 2011, Pritchett’s physician cleared her to return to work without restrictions but recommended that she request additional leave to seek a diagnosis and treatment for potential MS and referred her to a neurologist. Pritchett did as her doctor recommended and submitted a request for unpaid leave to JJC’s HR officers.
Internal JJC communications revealed that JJC’s HR department planned to approve Pritchett’s request, but was vetoed by the JJC’s Acting Director, Captain Kelly Gibson. Lisa Quinto – Pritchett’s direct supervisor – explained to Gibson that “you may wish to consider approving this leave through November 1, 2011. This way we can write to her now and advise her no further leave will be approved beyond November 1 and if she is not medically cleared to return to work, she must resign.” Quinto explained that JJC would have to remove her if she were diagnosed with MS. However, without providing Pritchett with notice that further requests for leave would be denied, Pritchett would likely successfully challenge her eventual removal. Therefore, Quinto recommended that JJC approve her request, but explain that there would be no further extensions. Gibson again declined but was eventually convinced after HR involved her superior. JJC approved Pritchett’s request on October 11, granting unpaid leave through November 1, but explained that it expected her to resign if she was unable to return to work on November 2, 2011.
On November 1, Pritchett contacted JJC’s HR manager, and explained that she was unable to return to work but did not wish to resign. JJC wrote Pritchett a letter explaining that she would be subject to termination proceedings which would disqualify her from receiving her pension if she did not resign by the end of the week. Pritchett resigned on November 4 and applied for retirement disability benefits. Later that month, Pritchett consulted with the JJC’s ADA coordinator and its Equal Opportunity Office, which both agreed that she was forced to retire against her will in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), though they believed that her request for reinstatement was mooted by her approval for disability retirement.
Given that the ADA coordinator was not involved prior to Pritchett’s termination, there was no opportunity for Pritchett to engage in the ADA’s interactive process to obtain a reasonable accommodation. After Pritchett’s removal, JJC revised its Leave of Absence policy to state that leaves would be subject to the approval of management. Gibson recommended Pritchett for reemployment if she provided medical clearance.
Pritchett sued the state of New Jersey for violating her rights under the LAD, and won a verdict of just over $12 million dollars, including $575,000 in emotional distress damages, and $10 million in punitive damages. At the trial, Pritchett’s expert witness testified that she was able to return to her position without any restrictions. Upon reconsideration, the trial court upheld the punitive damages award, and the state appealed.
The appellate court affirmed. It explained that the relevant considerations in evaluating the reasonableness of the punitive damages award are: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of defendant’s conduct; (2) the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages award and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.
The Court agreed that JJC’s conduct was reprehensible. It was aware of Pritchett’s MS diagnosis in November 2011, but never informed its ADA coordinator, thus depriving Pritchett of the ability to engage in the interactive process for an accommodation. It did so against the advice of its own HR department. As a result, Pritchett was forced to retire early while financially and medically vulnerable. JJC thereafter revised its Leave of Absence policy to retain greater control over the granting of leave time.
The Court considered the disparity between Pritchett’s harm and the punitive damages award. It chose to deduct the $575,000 emotional damages portion of the award, finding that since Pritchett did not submit much evidence of her emotional distress, this was better understood as a hidden punitive damages award. It found that the punitive damages award was about seven times that of the revised compensatory damages award, which was an acceptable ratio under the law.
Finally, the Court noted that the LAD did not prohibit punitive damages. Although it provided for a civil fine limited to $50,000, this amount did not have any bearing on the punitive damages award. The Court affirmed the punitive damages award, and eliminated the emotional damages award.
Pritchett v. New Jersey, DOCKET NO. A-1414-21, 2024 WL 331979 (N.J. Super. App. Div., 2024).