The New Jersey Supreme Court has cleared the way for a new trial in a wrongful termination lawsuit brought against Bridgewater Township.
A woman who said she was forced to resign as a Bridgewater Township police dispatcher because of her medical condition and was later fired from her position as a township records clerk, was granted a new trial by the state Supreme Court on Thursday.
In a 6-0 vote, the court agreed with the Appellate Court that Bridgewater resident Patricia Del Vecchio was the victim of disability discrimination and retaliation when she was terminated from her job in 2009.
Del Vecchio's bid for a new trail hinged on whether now-retired state Superior Court Judge John Coyle, who presided over the trial, improperly limited the trial testimony of Del Vecchio's physicians about her medical condition.
Delvecchio suffered from an inflammatory bowel syndrome and anxiety and panic attacks resulting from stress, according to court documents.
"I think it's a great decision," said Somerville-based attorney Brian M. Cige, who represents Del Vecchio. "I think it's great for my client and I also think it's going to be helpful to many plaintiff in the future because it clarifies that treating physicians can testify without the burden of being designated as an expert witness.
"We're looking forward to a trial date so we can get some resolution to this matter because it's been a long time."
Township Administrator James Naples didn't return a phone call seeking comment.
Bedminster cop sues department
It was stated in court documents that Del Vecchio's claim of wrongful termination was initially rejected by a Somerset County jury after a 13-day trial. In August 2014, a state appellate court reversed the verdict and ordered a new trial.
Bridgewater then appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court.
Del Vecchio, who was hired as a dispatcher in 1999, held the post until February 2008, when she was asked to resign after refusing to work the midnight shift because of her medical condition, according to court documents. Instead, she took a lower-paying job as a township records clerk.
In 2003, Del Vecchio was diagnosed by Dr. Gary Ciambotti, her gastroenterologist, with inflammatory bowl syndrome. He submitted more than a dozen notes to the township saying that working the midnight shift would worsen her condition, according to court documents.
The township initially agreed but then reconsidered after receiving complaints from Del Vecchio's co-workers. She was then told she would have to work "occasional midnight shifts," according to court documents.
In 2006, Del Vecchio also submitted notes from Dr. Joseph Rochford, a psychiatrist, who diagnosed her as having anxiety and panic attacks as a result of working the midnight shift and it's "absolutely medically necessary" she disconnect working the shift, according to court records.
As a result, she was not required to work the midnight shift in 2006, 2007 or 2008, which the township said had upset co-workers. She was granted a transfer to the records department in 2008 and was terminated on September 16, 2009 for "neglect of duty and chronic/excessive absenteeism."
Cige argued that Coyle should not have limited Ciambotti's testimony during the trial because he wasn't designated as an expert witness. Following his brief testimony, the jury asked that Ciambotti be asked more questions about the nature of the condition and its treatment.
But Coyle refused the jury's request, saying that Ciambotti had not been called as an "expert witness" and if he gave his opinion his testimony would then be inadmissible.
In the appeal, Cige argued that the judge's limitation made it extremely difficult for him to show that Del Vecchio fell within the class of people protected by the state's Law Against Discrimination. Rochford's testimony was also limited by the judge.
The Appellate Court agreed with Cige and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, saying that "testimony excluded at trial was offered to address a pivotal element of the plaintiff's claims for disability discrimination."
"(Del Vecchio) was not accorded a fair opportunity to prove she suffered from a disability within the meaning of the Law Against Discrimination," the state Supreme Court wrote, adding that the judge's action constitute a "miscarriage of justice under the law."
Dave Hutchinson may be reached at dhutchinson@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @DHutch_SL. Find NJ.com on Facebook.