Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Stacie Dechert v. Totowa Board of Education

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A-0545-24

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (15)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (10.1K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0545-24

STACIE DECHERT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOTOWA BOARD OF
EDUCATION,

Defendant-Respondent.

---

Submitted January 7, 2026 – Decided March 11, 2026

Before Judges Mayer and Paganelli.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-2054-22.

Costello & Silverman, LLC, attorneys for appellant
(Jenelle L. Hubbard, on the briefs).

Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys for respondent
(William Bloom, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Stacie Dechert appeals from an October 22, 2024 order granting

summary judgment to defendant Totowa Board of Education and denying her

cross-motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

We glean the facts from the motion record. On May 4, 2022, plaintiff was

under contract with defendant for the school year September 2022 to June 2023.

She was "employed as a special education aide" and "was responsible for one -

on-one assistance for children between the ages of six and eight with severe

disabilities."

Plaintiff had pre-existing sciatica but had no difficulty performing her

duties as an aide attributable to her back problem. Plaintiff wore a back brace

to school on occasion and discussed her back condition with school personnel.

At her deposition, she testified "she never experienced any negative treatment

. . . due to her back issues." In April 2022, plaintiff's sciatica "flare[d] up."

According to plaintiff, her doctor prescribed Prednisone, Flexeril and

Oxycodone. Plaintiff stated her doctor prescribed the medications "to be taken

at the same time."

"On May 4, 2022, [p]laintiff's back was feeling better until she had to stop

a child from leaving the room." Plaintiff testified that she "twisted" her back

A-0545-24
2
and the pain became intolerable. Plaintiff received permission to go home and

retrieve her back brace. At home, plaintiff "put on her back brace."

Plaintiff testified she spoke with her husband regarding taking her

medication. "He advised [her] to just bring" the medication with her and

"suggested" it was "not a bad idea to take half." She testified that she did not

"think it was a good idea" because she did "not like to take medication," "still

had a half an hour left" in the school day, and the Flexeril made her tired and

she did not want to be "sleepy" while at school. Nevertheless, she took "[a] half

a Flexeril, and a half of Oxycodone." Plaintiff explained she was not concerned

that taking the medications together would affect "her ability to work at school"

or cause an adverse reaction.

Shortly after returning to school, plaintiff began to experience severe

stomach pain. Plaintiff excused herself and went to the restroom. While in the

restroom, she began to experience "heat and redness." According to plaintiff,

she told a student who was also in the bathroom "to tell the teacher that she was

not feeling well" and "she felt as though she could not breathe." Plaintiff

testified her body temperature was elevated and she went in and out of

consciousness.

A-0545-24
3
When the school nurse arrived, the nurse found plaintiff on the bathroom

floor with another aide. The nurse described plaintiff as "being in a . . . 'total

panic,' . . . and 'just screaming.'" The nurse stated plaintiff "looked like she was

having a seizure," "her eyes were rolling" and "she was sweating."

The school nurse stated plaintiff "was screaming that she had to go to the

bathroom." Because plaintiff was limp, the nurse and the aide "picked her up

and carried her to the toilet where she kept having massive diarrhea." According

to the school nurse, a police officer administered oxygen and "considered

administering Narcan."

Plaintiff was transported to the hospital via ambulance and treated for an

allergic reaction. Because she felt "groggy," plaintiff did not return to work the

next day. On May 6, 2022, plaintiff met with the District Superintendent, who

advised plaintiff "to resign and reapply for the following school year." Plaintiff

testified that she offered to provide her hospital records regarding the incident,

but defendant never requested the records. Plaintiff declined to resign and she

was terminated during a May 12, 2022 meeting with the District Superintendent.

The May 26, 2022 letter of termination stated:

[A]t a regular meeting, held on Wednesday, May 25,
2022, [defendant] accepted the recommendation of the
termination of your employment with the Totowa

A-0545-24
4
School District as a [s]pecial [e]ducation [a]ide,
effective Thursday, May 12, 2022.

The decision was made solely in the best interests and
welfare of the students and staff in this district. We
firmly believe the termination of your employment was
for good cause and was unequivocally absent of any
discrimination.

We initially spoke on Friday, May 6, 2022, and were of
the mutual understanding that a voluntary leave through
the remainder of the school year, would allow you to
address any physical medical conditions and to undergo
any necessary evaluations. We also had an
understanding that if all conditions were satisfactorily
met and you were declared fit to return, and so desired,
that we would consider the possibility.

You pivoted from that position shortly after our
meeting. At our second meeting, held on Thursday,
May 12, 2022, you provided me a doctor's note from a
primary care physician clearing you to return to work
due to your back injury. There were no medical
records, evaluations, or notes from any provider
addressing the medical episode that occurred . . . on
Wednesday, May 4, 2022, and to which by your own
admission involved a reaction to mixing narcotics.

For these reasons and with the students' and staffs' best
interests, safety, and welfare in mind, we firmly believe
that there was good cause and justification to support
our decision.

A-0545-24
5
In August 2022, plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against defendant,

alleging she "suffers from sciatica and is disabled within the meaning of that

term under the" New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).1

After the completion of discovery, defendant moved for summary

judgment and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial court

heard the parties' arguments. During argument, among other points, plaintiff

argued she suffered an allergic reaction and her allergy is "a form of disability

and [he]r expert report which was attached to the motion describes exactly the

nature of the allergy and how it's a cellular deficiency." Defendant countered

that plaintiff's "complaint . . . stated [the] disability was sciatica" but during her

deposition she "conceded that the only basis for the termination . . . was claimed

allergic reaction." Defendant asserted that even considering plaintiff's fall-back

position—that she suffered an allergic reaction—there was no "evidence from

which a reasonable jury could conclude defendant's termination was motivated

by" discrimination.

About three months after argument, the trial court placed its decision on

the record. The court stated it considered the parties' written submissions and

1
N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50.
A-0545-24
6
oral arguments. The court also considered the requirements of the summary

judgment Rule 4:46-2, and the relevant law under the LAD.

The trial court found "per . . . plaintiff's complaint[,] the only alleged

disability is sciatica." The court determined "plaintiff's claim fail[ed] because

there [wa]s no evidence in the motion record that discriminatory animus

motivated . . . defendant's decision to terminate her . . . after she had a narcotic

drug-induced medical emergency." The court found "no reasonable fact finder

. . . could conclude that [the decision to terminate] was driven by a

discriminatory animus." Instead, the judge held defendant's "best interest . . .

was the protection of faculty, staff[,] and students." The court concluded "there

[was] absolutely no evidence in the motion record that . . . defendant . . . sought

someone else to perform the same work."

On appeal, plaintiff contends "[t]he trial court correctly determined that

[she] had met her burden under McDonnell Douglas [2] to establish a prima facie

case of discrimination on her LAD claims." However, she argues "[t]he trial

court erred . . . in determining that the first element of [her] prima facie case

was satisfied only by establishing [her] sciatica as [her] sole disability in this

case." Instead, she asserts there was "sufficient, credible evidence that [she]

2
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
A-0545-24
7
suffers from two separate disabilities: (1) sciatica, and (2) a severe allergy to

her prescribed medication." (Emphasis omitted).

Plaintiff contends the court's error stemmed from its misreading of her

complaint. She asserts her complaint "expressly set[] forth [her] allegations of

disability based on her severe allergy and allergic reaction to medication." For

support, plaintiff relies on the allegation in the complaint stating her diagnosis

was "an allergic reaction to the combination of medi[c]ations."

Plaintiff argues "a court's review of a motion for summary judgment is not

limited to the parties' pleadings," citing Rule 4:46-2(c). She contends "the trial

court's [d]ecision impermissibly ignore[d] the additional competent evidence in

the record . . . which confirm[ed] that [her] severe medication allergy [wa] s also

a disability." As part of the additional competent evidence, plaintiff relies on

her purported expert report attached to her summary judgment motion papers.

Therefore, plaintiff argues she "established [a] prima facie case of disability

discrimination . . . based on two separate disabilities: (1) sciatica, and (2) severe

allergy to certain medications."

Next, plaintiff contends the trial court erred by misapplying the summary

judgment standard. She argues the court "view[ed] multiple, disputed facts in

a light most favorable to [d]efendant." She asserts the court "ultimately

A-0545-24
8
credit[ed d]efendant's proffered reason that its termination decision was

legitimate based on [d]efendant's concerns regarding [her] 'narcotic drug-

induced medical emergency.'"

Plaintiff further argues the trial court erred in finding there was "no

evidence of pretext" or that no "discriminatory animus motivated defendant's

decision to terminate her." (Emphasis omitted). She contends the trial court

"plainly adopt[ed d]efendant's view of what happened" by "[e]ssentially . . .

quot[ing] . . . [d]efendant's reply brief."

We review a trial court's order granting or denying "a motion for summary

judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court." Samolyk

v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73, 78 (2022) (citing Woytas v. Greenwood Tree Experts,

Inc., 237 N.J. 501, 511 (2019)). The moving party must include "a concise

statement of each material fact as to which the movant contends there is no

genuine issue together with a citation to the portion of the motion record

establishing the fact or demonstrating that it is uncontroverted." R. 4:46-2(a).

In response, "[a] party opposing the motion shall file a responding statement

either admitting or disputing each of the facts in the movant's statement." R.

4:46-2(b). If the opposing party does not "specifically dispute[]" in the same

A-0545-24
9
manner as required by paragraph (a), "all [the] material facts in the movant's

statement which are sufficiently supported will be deemed admitted." Ibid.

A court must grant a motion for summary judgment "if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a

matter of law." R. 4:46-2(c).

Under the Rule, "[a]n issue of fact is genuine only if, considering the

burden of persuasion at trial, the evidence submitted by the parties on the

motion, together with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring the non -

moving party, would require submission of the issue to the trier of fact." Ibid.

Thus, when reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment, the appellate

court considers "whether the competent evidential materials presented, when

viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to

permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the

non-moving party." Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540

(1995).

The LAD provides that "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice, or,

as the case may be, an unlawful discrimination . . . [f]or an employer, because

A-0545-24
10
of the . . . disability . . . to discharge . . . from employment such individual."

N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a). See also Grande v. St. Clare's Health Sys., 230 N.J. 1, 16

(2017) (noting that "the LAD prohibits an employer from terminating a disabled

employee because of her disability").

Moreover, "[a]n employee perceived to have a disability is protected

under the LAD to the same extent as someone who is disabled." Guzman v. M.

Teixeira Int'l, Inc., 476 N.J. Super. 64, 70 (App. Div. 2023). "LAD claims based

upon a perceived disability still require 'a perceived characteristic that, if

genuine, would qualify a person for the protections of the LAD.'" Ibid. (quoting

Dickson v. Cmty. Bus Lines, Inc., 458 N.J. Super. 522, 532 (App. Div. 2019))

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Under the LAD a

"[d]isability" means physical or sensory disability,
infirmity, malformation, or disfigurement which is
caused by bodily injury, birth defect, or illness
including epilepsy and other seizure disorders, and
which shall include, but not be limited to, any degree of
paralysis, amputation, lack of physical coordination,
blindness or visual impairment, deafness or hearing
impairment, muteness or speech impairment, or
physical reliance on a service or guide dog, wheelchair,
or other remedial appliance or device, or any mental,
psychological, or developmental disability, including
autism spectrum disorders, resulting from anatomical,
psychological, physiological, or neurological
conditions which prevents the typical exercise of any

A-0545-24
11
bodily or mental functions or is demonstrable,
medically or psychologically, by accepted clinical or
laboratory diagnostic techniques. Disability shall also
mean AIDS or HIV infection.

[N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(q).]

A "person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful employment practice

or an unlawful discrimination . . . may initiate suit in [the] Superior Court."

N.J.S.A. 10:5-13(a)(2). "An employee who commences an action seeking

redress for an alleged violation of the LAD 'may attempt to prove employment

discrimination by either direct or circumstantial evidence.'" Smith v. Millville

Rescue Squad, 225 N.J. 373, 394 (2016) (quoting Bergen Com. Bank v. Sisler,

157 N.J. 188, 208 (1999)). "A case established through direct evidence is also

referred to as either a 'Price Waterhouse case' or a 'mixed-motive case.'" Smith,

225 N.J. at 394 n.3 (citing Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 277-78

(1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring)). Plaintiff did not allege a Price Waterhouse

case.

Therefore, she must establish her case "through circumstantial evidence

. . . referred to as a 'McDonnell Douglas case' or a 'pretext case.'" Ibid. (citing

McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802). The McDonnell Douglas framework

"suppl[ies] a tool for assessing claims, typically at summary judgment."

A-0545-24
12
Comcast Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Afr. Am. Owned Media, 589 U.S. 327, 340

(2020).

Applying the McDonnell Douglas

framework, a plaintiff must first prove a prima facie
case of discrimination. Andersen v. Exxon Co., U.S.A.,
89 N.J. 483, 492 (1982). To do so, a plaintiff must
show that he or she (1) belongs to a protected class; (2)
applied for or held a position for which he or she was
objectively qualified; (3) was not hired or was
terminated from that position; and that (4) the employer
sought to, or did fill the position with a similarly-
qualified person. Ibid. The establishment of a prima
facie case gives rise to a presumption of discrimination.
Id. at 493.

Once that threshold has been met, the burden of
going forward shifts to the employer to articulate a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse
employment action. Ibid. After the employer does so,
the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the
employer's proffered reason was merely a pretext for
discrimination. Ibid. To prove pretext, however, a
plaintiff must do more than simply show that the
employer's reason was false; he or she must also
demonstrate that the employer was motivated by
discriminatory intent. Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan
Co. Inc., 117 N.J. 539, 561 (1990) (holding that an
"employee can be fired for a false cause or no cause at
all. That firing may be unfair, but it is not illegal").
Thus, under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a
plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of persuasion at all
times; only the burden of production shifts. Andersen,
89 N.J. at 493.

A-0545-24
13
[Viscik v. Fowler Equip. Co., 173 N.J. 1, 14 (2002)
(citations reformatted).]

"The McDonnell Douglas framework utilizes both subjective and

objective employer standards at different stages of its analysis." Id. at 21. "[I]n

addressing the second prong of McDonnell Douglas . . . the standard is an

objective one: was the employee meeting the employer's legitimate or

reasonable expectations." Ibid. (citing Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J.

575, 600 (1988)). Additionally,

in answering the overarching question whether the
employer's proffered non-discriminatory reason for
discharge was pretextual, the fact-finder is required to
consider the employee's performance or other qualities
in light of the employer's subjective standards . . . . In
that respect, the employer's subjective decision-making
may be sustained even if unfair.

[Ibid. (citation omitted).]

We are "cognizant of the Supreme Court's directive that the LAD 'must be

sensibly and practically applied . . . [and] construed fairly and justly with due

regard to the interests of all parties.'" Guzman, 476 N.J. Super. at 72 (alteration

in original) (quoting Andersen, 89 N.J. at 496) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

While the LAD shall be liberally construed to protect against

discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-3, the "LAD acknowledges the right of employers

A-0545-24
14
to manage their businesses as they see fit." Viscik, 173 N.J. at 13. Thus,

employers have "the right to fire . . . employees who are unable to perform the

job, 'whether because they are generally unqualified or because they have a

handicap that in fact impedes job performance.'" Jansen v. Food Circus

Supermarkets, Inc., 110 N.J. 363, 374 (1988) (quoting Andersen, 89 N.J. at 496).

The LAD does not "prevent the termination or change of the employment of any

person who in the opinion of the employer, reasonably arrived at, is unable to

perform adequately the duties of employment, nor to preclude discrimination

among individuals on the basis of competence, performance, conduct or any

other reasonable standards," N.J.S.A. 10:5-2.1; and is "construed to prohibit any

unlawful discrimination against any person because such person is or has been

at any time disabled or any unlawful employment practice against such person,

unless the nature and extent of the disability reasonably precludes the

performance of the particular employment." N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1 (emphasis

added). It is "clear that an employer may terminate a disabled employee where

continued employment 'would be hazardous to the safety or health of

[the employee], other employees, clients or customers.'" Grande, 230 N.J. at

19-20 (alteration in original) (quoting N.J.A.C. 13:13-2.8(a)(2))

A-0545-24
15
Applying this well-established law, we conclude summary judgment was

properly granted to defendant and denied to plaintiff. First, as to sciatica, there

is no evidence plaintiff was terminated because of this condition. Instead,

according to plaintiff, she had sciatica as a pre-existing condition; had no issues

performing her duties because of the condition; was permitted to wear her back

brace at work; and "never experienced any negative treatment . . . due to her

back issues." Under these circumstances, plaintiff failed to establish that

defendant's reason for termination was pretextual and instead actually based on

a discriminatory animus related to her sciatica.

Second, we consider the allegation that plaintiff's allergic reaction

constituted a disability under the LAD and defendant's discriminatory animus

toward the disability was the reason for her termination. As the trial court found,

plaintiff's complaint only alleged sciatica as her identified disability. Generally,

parties may not use a motion for summary judgment to introduce new claims or

theories. See Stewart v. N.J. Tpk. Auth./Garden State Parkway, 249 N.J. 642,

648 (2022) (noting a "new theory should not have been considered given its late

presentation"). Nevertheless, the court considered plaintiff's disability was an

allergic reaction to medication. Thus, for the sake of completeness, we consider

the allegation, as well.

A-0545-24
16
Plaintiff's purported expert opined that her condition "certainly limits her

ability to take certain medications in combination." In Guzman,

[w]e recognize[d] the term "disability" in the LAD "is
not restricted to 'severe' or 'immutable' disabilities,"
Viscik, 173 N.J. at 16. . . or to "[disabling]
condition[s that] result in substantial limitation of a
major life activity," Tynan v. Vicinage 13 of the
Superior Ct., 351 N.J. Super. 385, 398 (App. Div.
2002), and that courts "adhere to a broad interpretation
of the [LAD] as it applies to the physically [disabled],"
Andersen, 89 N.J. at 496.

[476 N.J. Super. at 72 (all but first and second
alterations in original) (citations reformatted).]

However, applying the LAD "sensibly and practically," we also stated

"[n]ot every illness will constitute a disability under the LAD." Ibid. Here,

while we do not minimize the severity of plaintiff's adverse reaction to her

medications, her apparent one-time medication reaction failed to constitute a

disability under the LAD.

Moreover, even if plaintiff's allergy constituted a disability, and it is not,

plaintiff failed to establish that defendant's reasons for her termination—"the

students' and staffs' best interests, safety, and welfare"—was pretextual and

based on an actual discriminatory animus toward her allergy.

Affirmed.

A-0545-24
17