Does an allergic reaction qualify as a disability under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD)? Is it unlawful to terminate someone due to symptoms from an allergic reaction? In a recent case, Dechert v. Totowa Bd. of Educ., No. A-0545-24, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 436 (App. Div. Mar. 11, 2026), the New Jersey Appellate Division considered these issues in the context of a school district employee. The Court ultimately concluded that the allergic reaction at issue did not qualify as a disability, and even if it had, the school board was within its rights to terminate the employee in order to protect the welfare of both the employee and the students.
Plaintiff, Stacie Dechert, was employed as a special education aide for the Totowa School District during the 2022–23 school year, providing one-on-one assistance to children with severe disabilities aged 6 to 8. From the start of her employment, Plaintiff disclosed that she had a pre-existing condition, sciatica. She never had any difficulty performing her job because of this condition. Plaintiff routinely wore a back brace at work and testified at a deposition that “she never experienced any negative treatment…due to her back issues.”
In April 2022, Plaintiff’s sciatica flared, and her doctor prescribed multiple narcotic pain medications for use as needed. On May 4, 2022, she injured her back when she was attempting to prevent a student from leaving the classroom. She received permission to go home during the school day to retrieve her back brace. While at home, she took half of a Flexeril and a half of Oxycodone, two different narcotics, for pain and returned to work.
Upon her return to work, Plaintiff experienced severe stomach pain and shortness of breath. She told a student who was in the bathroom to tell another teacher that she was not feeling well and could not breathe. She went in and out of consciousness in the restroom. The school nurse found her on the floor of the restroom, in a state resembling a seizure. Police administered oxygen, considered Narcan, and Plaintiff was transported to the hospital for treatment of an allergic reaction.
On May 6, the superintendent advised Plaintiff that she should resign from her employment and reapply the following school year. She declined, providing a doctor’s note on May 12 clearing her to return to work for her back injury. The note made no mention of the May 4 incident related to the medication she had taken. That same day, the school district terminated Plaintiff’s employment, advising that it was terminating her “with the students’ and staff’s best interests, safety, and welfare in mind…” and that they “firmly believe[d] that “there was good cause and justification to support [the] decision.”
In August 2022, Plaintiff filed suit under the LAD, asserting that she was disabled due to sciatica and alleging discriminatory termination. Both parties later moved for summary judgment. At oral argument, Plaintiff claimed that her allergic reaction constituted a disability. The school district argued that the Complaint alleged that sciatica was her only disability and that she was terminated due to her allergic reaction, which is not a disability.
The trial Court found in favor of the school district. It held that Plaintiff’s only disability was sciatica and there was no evidence of discrimination. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the court erred by failing to consider her allergy as a separate disability.
On appeal, the Court upheld the trial court’s findings. It found no evidence that Plaintiff’s sciatica played any role in her termination, and her one-time reaction to medication did not meet the LAD’s definition of a disability. Even assuming the reaction qualified as a disability, the school district had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination: protecting the welfare and safety of students and staff.
This case is significant because it underscores the fact that not all medical conditions constitute a disability under the LAD. It also reinforces that, even if an employee has a medical condition, termination may be lawful if continued employment could compromise the safety or welfare of others.