New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

A question that often comes up in sexual harassment cases is whether you can rely on harassment you learned about secondhand to help prove your case. For example, can you use the fact that one of your coworkers told you that someone else made sexually offensive comments about you to help prove you worked in a sexually hostile work environment?

To prove a sexual harassment case, you need to show you experienced conduct because of your gender that was severe (bad) or pervasive (frequent) enough to make a reasonable woman believe the conditions of her employment were altered and her working environment was hostile or abusive. In determining whether your workplace was sufficiently hostile or abusive, a judge or jury is supposed to consider all of the circumstances, including how frequently the discriminatory conduct occurred, how severe it was, whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interfered with your job performance.

There are many cases that recognize an employee can rely on secondhand information in a sexual harassment case for certain purposes. For instance, you can rely on evidence that other women were harassed to help show the treatment you experienced was because of your gender, rather than motivated by something else. That is true even if you did not learn about the harassment the other women experienced until after you left your job.

But can you consider evidence of discriminatory conduct you learned about secondhand to prove your workplace was hostile? Most federal courts that have considered the issue have ruled that as long you were aware of the harassment when you were working for the company, you can use evidence of harassment you learned about from someone else to prove that your work environment was hostile. This includes the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, as well as numerous District Court decisions including the District of New Jersey. As a result, for those of you in New York State, at least assuming your case is in federal court, evidence of harassment you learned about secondhand should be available to help prove your workplace was hostile.

However, there is language in a 2008 New Jersey Supreme Court opinion, Godfrey v. Princeton Theological Seminary, which says that when proving her work environment was hostile, a woman must rely on "evidence of bad conduct of which she has firsthand knowledge." If interpreted literally, that could mean a plaintiff cannot rely on evidence of harassment she learned about secondhand, even if it actually contributed to make her work environment hostile. But in Godfrey, since the harassment occurred before the employees who brought the lawsuit started working for the employer, it was neither directed at nor witnessed by them. As a result, it is not surprising the court found the women could not rely on this evidence to prove their work environment was hostile.

Given New Jersey's strong public policy in favor of prohibiting sexual harassment from the workplace, I doubt the New Jersey Supreme Court intended to rule that an employee can never rely on harassment she learned about second hand. Rather, evidence of harassment that you learned about secondhand should be relevant as long as it actually contributed to making your work environment hostile. Of course, that will not prevent employers from arguing that this type of evidence is inadmissible under Godfrey.

For more information about the Godfrey case, please read our previous article: New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies Sexual Harassment Standard: Repeatedly Asking for Dates is Not Sexual Harassment.

Continue reading "He Said What? Proving Sexual Harassment Based on Information Learned Secondhand" »

Last week, I discussed Mandel v. M&Q Packaging Corp., a case which recognizes that an employee who sent sexual emails at work still can pursue a sexual harassment claim. Mandel also addresses when an employee can use evidence that someone else experienced harassment to prove her own harassment claim. In other words, it discusses when an employee can offer so-called "me too" evidence in a harassment case.

Mandel recognizes that whether you can use evidence that someone else experienced sexual harassment to try to prove your own case depends on the circumstances. The most important factor is how related or similar the two forms of harassment are to each other. A previous United States Supreme Court case, Spring/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, recognizes that depending on the circumstances, "me too" evidence can be used to prove a discrimination or harassment case even if the harassment involved a different supervisor.

Applying this principle in Mandel, the Third Circuit ruled that the lower court correctly prohibited Ms. Mandel from relying on evidence of harassment toward two other women. It explained that while Ms. Mandel worked for a subsidiary, M&Q Packaging, the other two women worked for its parent company, M&Q Plastic Products, Inc. As a result, the Third Circuit found the harassment the other women experienced was not similar enough to the harassment Ms. Mandel alleged she experience. It therefore ruled that Ms. Mandel cannot use evidence regarding the sexual harassment the other two women experienced to support her own claim.

In other instances, an employee might be able to use evidence that another supervisor harassed someone else at work to prove her claim. Relevant factors are likely to include things like how similar the acts of harassment are to each other, whether the harassment occurred in the same department or building, whether the harassers reported to the same supervisor, how close in time the harassment occurred to each other, and other similarities and differences between the acts of harassment.

Continue reading "It Happened to Me Too - When Can You Prove Harassment With Evidence of Harassment to Someone Else?" »

When an employee brings a harassment claim under federal law, one element of her claim is that she was harmed by the harassment. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently recognized that an employee can meet that requirement even though she personally sent emails containing sexual jokes at work.

The employee in question, Shannon Mandel, worked for M&Q Packing Corp. as an Inside Sales and Customer Relations Coordinator. She alleges she experienced sexual harassment including:

• Calling her "woman," "darling," "fluffy," "missy," "hon," "toots," "too female;" and "too emotional;"
• Commenting about her body, clothing, and physical appearance;
• Paying her less than her male peer;
• A male manager telling her a meeting would take place at his house, and they would conclude their part of the meeting in the morning;
• Another male supervisor indicting he fantasizes about her while having sex with his wife; and
• A third male manager asking her on dates even after she told him she was not interested

Previously, the District Court had dismissed Ms. Mandel's sexual harassment claim, finding there was not enough evidence for a jury to conclude she was harmed by the harassment. It relied heavily on the fact that Ms. Mandel frequently used vulgarity and sent emails containing sexual jokes at work. The District Court found this behavior demonstrated Ms. Mandel's "casual ease with this type of workplace behavior." While the court recognized that did not necessarily mean Ms. Mandel had not been harmed by the harassment she experienced, it also concluded she had no evidence she had experienced emotional distress as a result of the harassment, or that the harassment made it more difficult for her to perform her job. It also indicated the only time Ms. Mandel complained about the harassment was after she was called a "bitch," and she made that complaint to a coworker rather than to a supervisor or the Human Resources Department.

In Mandel v. M&Q Packaging Corp., the Third Circuit strongly disagreed. It indicated it was "disturbed" by the District Court's conclusion that no reasonable jury could find Ms. Mandel was harmed by the harassment. It explained that even though Ms. Mandel engaged in unprofessional conduct by using vulgarity and sending sexual jokes, the harassment she experienced was "often worse and apparently uninvited." Further, it disputed the District Court's conclusion that Ms. Mandel only complained about one incident of harassment. In addition, it recognized that Ms. Mandel had stated under oath that the harassment caused her harm. Accordingly, it found a reasonable jury could conclude that Ms. Mandel was harmed by the sexual harassment, and reversed the District Court's decision to dismiss her sexual harassment claim.

Continue reading "Employee Who Sent Sexual Emails at Work Still Can Pursue a Sexual Harassment Claim" »

A federal judge in New Jersey recently dismissed an employee's discrimination lawsuit on the basis that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) does not apply to New Jersey residents who work outside of New Jersey. The employee, Blaise A. McGovern, is a resident of New Jersey. He worked for Southwest Airlines as a ramp supervisor at Philadelphia International Airport. He claims Southwest subjected him to abusive, harassing, and homophobic conduct. After Mr. McGovern reported the harassment to his supervisors, he received harassing telephone calls and text messages. After he filed a written harassment complaint, Southwest Airlines fired him.

Mr. McGovern sued Southwest under the NJLAD, alleging harassment and wrongful termination. Although the judge's opinion in McGovern v. Southwest Airlines does not say it, Mr. McGovern presumably claimed Southwest engaged in sexual orientation discrimination.

Southwest asked the court to dismiss Mr. McGovern's case. It argued that the NJLAD does not apply because Mr. McGovern worked for it exclusively in Pennsylvania. In response, Mr. McGovern argued that even though he did not perform any work for Southwest in New Jersey, the NJLAD still applies since some of the harassment occurred in New Jersey. For example, he received many of the harassing telephone calls and text messages while he was at home in New Jersey.

In granting Southwester's motion to dismiss the case, the judge explained that under New Jersey law a judge normally has to apply the employment laws of the state where the employee worked. He explained this rule protects companies from the "potential unfairness of having to comply with several different" sets of employment laws simply because their employees happen to live in different states. However, the judge noted there are exceptions to this general rule for employees who have "non-trivial" job duties in New Jersey. However, merely performing a small portion of your work in New Jersey is not enough for the NJLAD to apply. Since Mr. McGovern had not performed any work for Southwest in New Jersey, the judge rule that the NJLAD does not apply to him.

As discussed in a previous article, New York has a very different rule to determine whether the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL) applies to an employee who works outside of New York. Specifically, the NYHRL applies to employees who live in New York or when discrimination had an impact in New York even if the employee never worked in New York. As a result, the NYHRL applies to a much broader group of employees than the NJLAD.

Continue reading "Court Rules New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Does Not Apply to New Jersey Resident Who Worked in Pennsylvania" »

When an employee complains about discrimination or harassment at work, his employer generally has an obligation to investigate. It is common for employers to require employees involved in an internal investigation to keep all information about the investigation confidential. In some cases, this is meant to protect the privacy of the employee who made the complaint and other employees involved in the investigation. In other cases, the company's goal is to discourage or prevent other employees from making their own discrimination or harassment complaints.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently addressed whether these restrictions violate Title VII, a federal employment law that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

According to a blog post by Lorene Schaefer of One Mediation, the EEOC's Regional office in Buffalo, New York recently concluded that an employer committed a "flagrant" violation of Title VII by having a policy that prohibited all employees involved in an internal harassment investigation from discussing the harassment with anyone else. In that case, the employer warned the employees they could be subject to discipline if they did not comply with the confidentiality requirement.

The EEOC explained that an employee's ability to oppose discrimination without fear of retaliation is one of the most important rights protected by Title VII. The EEOC found the company's broad policy preventing employees from discussing the discrimination or harassment with anyone else interfered with that right since it implies that an employee could be disciplined if he contacted the EEOC about the harassment.

The conclusion reached by the EEOC's Buffalo office is only an opinion, and is not necessarily the law. However, it would not be surprising if the EEOC adopted the same position nationwide. In fact, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also prohibits an employer from imposing a blanket confidentiality requirement for employees involved in an internal investigation because it violates their right to unionize or otherwise work together to advance their rights in the workplace.

In a recent case, the NLRB gave examples of circumstances when an employer can legitimately require employees not to disclose anything related to an investigation. For example, it indicated that employers can require confidentiality to protect witnesses from retaliation, to minimize the risk of evidence being destroyed or fabricated, or to prevent a cover up.

It is often unclear whether you can discuss your harassment or discrimination claim with your coworkers or friends while your company is investigating. However, it clearly would be illegal for your employer to discipline or fire you because you contacted an employment lawyer or assisted the EEOC in their investigation.

Continue reading "Internal Investigations of Discrimination Complaints Might Not Be As Confidential As You Expect" »

On July 27, 2012, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled that submitting an intake questionnaire was enough for an employee to file a discrimination claim with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case was filed by Theresa Walker-Robinson, a branch manager for JP Morgan Chase Bank in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. Ms. Walker-Robinson is African-American and 46 years old. She claims her District Manager, Christopher Zardavets, announced he was going to "change the face of the region," and then began to visit bank branches whose mangers were African American women over 40 years old. Ms. Walker-Robinson complained about Mr. Zardavets' conduct, but he allegedly continued to come to her branch and make discriminatory comments about her and unfairly criticized her job performance. JP Morgan fired Ms. Walker-Robinson less than a month after she complained to Mr. Zardavets' boss about the harassment.

Ms. Walker-Robinson filled out and submitted two separate EEOC intake questionnaires. On the forms she claimed JP Morgan fired her because of her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). However, she never filled out or submitted the EEOC's Charge of Discrimination form.

After the EEOC sent Ms. Walker-Robinson a "right to sue letter," she filed a lawsuit including claims of age discrimination, race discrimination, gender discrimination, hostile work environment harassment, and retaliation. JP Morgan then asked the judge to dismiss her lawsuit because she did not submit the EEOC's Charge of Discrimination form.

Under federal law, employees in New Jersey have to file a "charge" of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days after being fired as a requirement to file a discrimination lawsuit under the ADEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, none of those laws defines the term "charge," or specifically require employees to use the EEOC's Charge of Discrimination form.

In Walker-Robinson v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (July 27, 2012), the judge ruled that Ms. Walker-Robinson's EEOC questionnaire was a "charge of discrimination. She primarily relied on an EEOC regulation which says that a charge of discrimination must include:

1. Full name, address and phone number of the person making the charge;
2. Full name and address of the person (or company) the charge is against;
3. Facts supporting the discrimination claim, including relevant dates;
4. Number of employees working for the employer (if known); and
5. A statement whether the employee has brought a claim about the same discriminatory practice with any state agency.

The judge also relied on a United States Supreme Court case that says a charge of discrimination also has to ask the EEOC to take action to remedy the discrimination. The judge ruled that Ms. Walker-Robinson's EEOC questionnaires met all of those requirements.

The judge also permitted Ms. Walker-Robinson to pursue her claims of gender discrimination, race discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Even though Ms. Walker-Robinson did not mention those claims in her EEOC questionnaires, the judge found they were related to the same facts as her age discrimination claim, and the EEOC should have addressed those claims during its investigation. The judge therefore denied JP Morgan's motion to dismiss Ms. Walker-Robinson's case.

Continue reading "Filing Questionnaire Can Be Enough to File Discrimination Claim With EEOC" »

This morning, I was quoted in the Bergen Record about a civil rights lawsuit I recently filed against the Borough of Bogota. Police Officer Regina Tasca alleges Bogota, as well as Police Chief John C. Burke, Captain James L. Sepp, Sergeant Robert Piterski, and Patrolman Jerome Fowler discriminated against and harassed her because she is gay and female. Officer Tasca also alleges the defendants retaliated against her because she spoke out about matters of public concern, and objected to violations of law including her objections to their gender and sexual orientation harassment. Officer Tasca's case was filed in Federal Court in Newark, New Jersey.

As I discussed here last month, Officer Tasca's case has received significant media attention. Since I wrote that article, her case has been the subject of numerous stories including:

• NJ Town Tries to Fire Lesbian Officer for Stopping Cop Beat Down (WPIX News)


• At disciplinary hearing, Bogota officer's attorney criticizes investigation into 2011 incidents (Bergen Record)

• Police video of emotionally disturbed person at heart of Bogota officer's disciplinary hearing (NJ.com)


• Suspended Bogota police officer gets public support (Bogota Bulletin)

Bogota is currently holding a disciplinary hearing in which it is trying to fire Officer Tasca. The hearing is scheduled to resume on May 15, 16 and 17. The hearing is taking place at the Bogota Borough Hall, at 375 Larch Avenue, Bogota, New Jersey.

Continue reading "Nirenberg Law Firm's Discrimination Lawsuit Discussed in Bergen Record" »

In a ground-breaking employment law decision, New Jersey's Appellate Division recently ruled that an employee can sue for a hostile work environment if his employer harasses him based on a mistaken belief that he belongs to a legally-protected group. Specifically, the court allowed an employee to proceed with his claim that his supervisors harassed him because they mistakenly believed he is Jewish, even though he is not.

Mr. Cowher's Supervisors Harassed Him Because They Thought He Was Jewish

Myron Cowher worked as a truck driver for Carson & Roberts for approximately two years. His supervisors made anti-Semitic slurs to him on a daily basis. For example, they referred to him as "Jew Bag," "Jew Bastard," "you Hebrew," "bagel meister," "Jew burger" and "f---ing Hebrew." They even told him "[i]f you were a German, we would burn you in the oven." Mr. Cowher's supervisors apparently made these comments because they thought he was Jewish.

New Jersey Law Prohibits Discrimination Based on Perceived Membership in a Legally-Protected Group

The trial court dismissed Mr. Cowher's case because he could not prove his employer harassed him because he is a member of any legally-protected group. However, in Cowher v. Carson & Roberts, the Appellate Division reversed that decision. It explained that it is well recognized that it is illegal for a company to harass or discriminate against an employee based on its mistaken belief that that he has a disability. It found there is no reason to treat disabilities differently than other legally-protected categories, such as race or religion. It therefore ruled that Mr. Cowher can proceed with his harassment claim on the theory that his supervisors harassed him because they mistakenly perceived him to be Jewish.

The appellate court indicated that the relevant question to determine whether this form of harassment violates of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) is the impact the derogatory comments would have had on a reasonable person who is Jewish, rather than the impact on an employee whose employer mistakenly believes he is Jewish. However, to prove that he is entitled to recover damages, Mr. Cowher will have to prove that he was offended by the comments, and that they caused him emotional distress damages and/or some other harm.

Although the case addresses discrimination based on being Jewish, its reasoning appears to apply to any form of harassment that is prohibited by the LAD. Thus, for example, it seems to mean it would be unlawful for a company to harass an employee because it mistakenly believes he is a particular age, race, or sexual orientation.

[Extended Body]: If you have experienced harassment or discrimination at work in either New Jersey and New York, we are here to help. Please contact the Nirenberg Law Firm to learn more about your employment law rights.

Continue reading "New Jersey Prohibits Harassment Based on Mistaken Belief that Employee is Jewish" »

Earlier this month, New Jersey's Appellate Division reversed a trial court's decision to dismiss two employees' sexual harassment case against their employer, the Mercer County Youth Detention Center. In Wallace v. Mercer County Youth Detention Center, the Appellate Division ruled that a jury needs to decide whether the employer's anti-harassment policy was effective. Employers can be held liable under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) for sexual harassment committed by a coworker if the employer did not have an effective anti-harassment policy.

Moneck Wallace and Tina Stewart, two female employees who worked for the Mercer County Youth Detention Center, claim a male coworker, Jerel Livingston, sexually harassed them. Ms. Wallace and Ms. Stewart both complained about the sexual harassment. After conducting an investigation, the employer concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support their claims. The two women then filed a sexual harassment lawsuit.

The trial judge dismissed the case even though it found that Ms. Wallace and Ms. Stewart had enough evidence to prove that Mr. Livingston sexually harassed them. However, it concluded that their employer could not be held liable for the harassment because the alleged harasser was not a supervisor, and Ms. Wallace and Ms. Stewart did not have any evidence that their employer was aware of the harassment but failed to respond to it.

The Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court's decision to dismiss the case. It explained that an employee might be able to prove her employer is liable for harassment committed by a supervisor or coworker if the employer did not have an effective anti-harassment policy.

The Appellate Division concluded that Ms. Wallace and Ms. Stewart had enough evidence to allow a jury to conclude that Mercer County did not have an effective anti-harassment policy. This included evidence that it:

1. Did not effectively inform its employees about its sexual harassment policy;
   
2. Did not provide adequate anti-harassment training to its employees;
   
3. Did not effectively enforce its anti-harassment policy;
   
4. Did not conduct a sufficient investigation into the alleged sexual harassment;
   
5. Did not use clear criteria when it evaluated whether the sexual harassment claim was substantiated; and
   
6. Did not have effective procedures to evaluate whether its sexual harassment policy was effective.

Continue reading "New Jersey Court Rules Jury Must Decide If Employer is Responsible for Coworker's Sexual Harassment" »

On August 29, 2011, in Bowers v. New Jersey Judiciary, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth Vicinage, New Jersey's Appellate Division reversed a trial court's decision dismissing Thomas Bower's lawsuit against his former employer, the New Jersey Judiciary. Thomas Bowers, an African-American, worked for the New Jersey Judiciary as an Information Technology Analyst. He claimed the Judiciary failed to promote him to Acting IT Manager and subjected him to a hostile work environment because of his race. Mr. Bowers was the only African-American in Monmouth County's IT Division. In fact, there were no other African-American IT managers in the entire New Jersey Judiciary, and only one other racial minority, an Asian Indian.

Beginning in July 2005, Mr. Bowers' supervisor took an extended medical leave. Shortly after, the Judiciary asked Mr. Bowers to take over the duties of IT Manager. This decision was subsequently recommended by Monmouth County's Assignment Judge. Mr. Bowers performed the duties of the IT supervisor for approximately 8 months.

But when the Judiciary sought to formally appoint him as its Acting IT Manager, the Assistant Director of Technical Services and Operations, Jonathon Massey, gave a very negative opinion of Mr. Bowers, including claiming he "doesn't understand simple technical things," he "is lazy and stands around and watches others do the work," and that another supervisor described him as a "cocky, arrogant, lazy, weasel, creep" who "does what he wants, doesn't tell the truth" and has a "chip on his shoulder." Not surprisingly, Mr. Bowers was not formally named the Acting IT Manager. However, informally he continued to perform the responsibilities of the IT Manager until April 2006, when the Judiciary named Troy Fitzpatrick its new permanent IT Manager.

After Mr. Fitzpatrick became the IT Manager, he gave Mr. Bowers assignments that were normally given to lower level and less senior IT employees, like answering Help Desk calls and creating a Help Desk manual. Mr. Fitzpatrick told Mr. Bowers that he could not assign work to anyone else, and also told him he could not leave his desk for any reason unless he found someone else to cover the Help Desk. Mr. Fitzpatrick also sought information from other employees about Mr. Bowers' work ethic, and was always short and curt when he spoke to Mr. Bowers, as if he did not want to speak to him. In comparison, Mr. Fitzpatrick treated a newly hired white male employee much better than Mr. Bowers, such as giving him less work and not limiting his ability to leave his desk.

The trial court dismissed Mr. Bowers' race discrimination and harassment claims because he was not subject to racial epithets and there was no direct evidence of race discrimination, he did not have enough evidence to prove either of those claims. But the Appellate Division disagreed. It explained that "discrimination rarely rears its ugly head directly. Rather, it typically manifests itself in subtle ways." In particular, it found that a jury could find that Mr. Massey's extremely negative recommendation was false and discriminatory. It noted that Mr. Massey admitted he knew very little about Mr. Bowers. Instead, it ruled that only a jury can decide whether the Judiciary's decision not to make Mr. Bowers its Acting IT Manager was discriminatory.

Next week, I will discuss Mr. Bowers' retaliation claim. In a subsequent article, I will discuss his claim that the judiciary failed to accommodate his disability.

Continue reading "IT Professional Given Second Chance in Race Discrimination Case Against New Jersey Judiciary" »

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from harassing and otherwise discriminating against employees based on their race, national origin, color, religion, and sex. Under Title VII, when a supervisor harasses an employee, the company often has a defense if it can prove (1) it used reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment, such as by having an anti-harassment policy, and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of an opportunity to stop the harassment, such as by not objecting to it under the company's anti-harassment policy. This defense is often referred to as the Faragher/Ellerth defense, based on the names of the two United States Supreme Court cases that created it.

But would it be reasonable for an employee to complain to the harasser, and nobody else? According to Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court which handles appeals from New York, whether that is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the case.

Specifically, in Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., crewmember Diane Gorzynski claims her former employer, JetBlue Airways Corporation, subjected her to sexual harassment. She says her supervisor, James Celeste, sexually harassed her by making massaging gestures with his hands; saying he wanted to massage breasts; indicating he wanted to suck on a particular woman's breasts; telling a crewmember that his wife was going to a "sex toy" party; asking another female crewmember if she had "gotten enough loving" over the weekend; announcing that Ms. Gorzynski had been a table dancer in the past; announcing that another female crewmember was a former pin-up girl; grabbing Ms. Gorzynski and other female crewmembers around the waist; attempting to tickle Ms. Gorzynski and other female crewmembers; looking at women as if he were mentally undressing them; and frequently making inappropriate sexual comments and gestures at work. The Second Circuit recognized that Mr. Celeste's behavior could have created a sexually hostile work environment for Ms. Gorzynski.

JetBlue has a formal sexual harassment policy, which is included in its employee handbook. Under that policy, if a crewmember believes she has been the victim of sexual harassment, she is required to tell her immediate supervisor, the Human Resources Department, or another member of management about it. In accordance with that policy, Ms. Gorzynski repeatedly objected to Mr. Celeste about his sexual harassment. However, she did not complain to anyone else when he continued harassing her. Ms. Gorzynski explained that she did not complain to anyone else because the other supervisor in her office was not receptive to her complaints about other problems at work, and the Human Resources Department had retaliated against another employee who complained about discrimination at work.

Initially, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed Ms. Gorzynski's sexual harassment claim, ruling that she was unreasonable because she did not complaint about the harassment to another supervisor or JetBlue's Human Resources Department.

However, the Second Circuit disagreed. It ruled that a jury has to decide whether Ms. Gorzynski acted reasonably under the circumstances. In doing so, it recognized "the courage it takes to complain about what are often humiliating events and the understandable fear of retaliation that exists in many sexual harassment situations." It held that it depends on the circumstances of each individual case whether it was unreasonable for an employee not to complain to someone else if the harassment continues after her first complaint. It concluded that a jury could find that under the circumstances it was reasonable for Ms. Gorzynski not to have objected to anyone other than the harasser about the harassment.

Sexual harassment at work violates New Jersey, New York, and federal employment laws. It can be very difficult to decide whether and how to object about sexual harassment at the workplace. If you have experienced sexual harassment or another violation of your employment law rights, you should consider contacting an experienced employment law attorney to discuss your options.

On February 8, 2011, New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled that an employee is entitled have a jury decide whether to award punitive damages against her former employer. Prior to the appeal, a jury had awarded the plaintiff, Judith Rusak, $80,108.80 in wages she lost because she experienced sexual harassment and retaliation at work. However, the trial judge did not let the jury decide whether to award punitive damages against Ms. Rusak's employer, Ryan Automotive.

Punitive damages are intended to punish a defendant for violating the law. As the Appellate Division explained, punitive damages are available against an employer under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) only if the company's upper management either actually participated in or was willfully indifferent to the discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, and the conduct was "especially egregious." An employer's actions are "especially egregious" if it engaged in an evil-minded act with a willful and wanton disregard for the employee's legal rights.

Applying that law, the court in Rusak v. Ryan Automotive, LLC concluded that a jury could find the sexual harassment Ms. Rusak experienced was especially egregious. Specifically, the court ruled that a jury should decide whether Ms. Rusak is entitled to punitive damages based on sexual harassment and retaliation that included supervisors telling Ms. Rusak sexually explicit stories about executives having sex with other executives' wives; leaving graphic pictures of female genitalia on her desk and sending copies of them to her by e-mail; sending pornography to her at work; calling her a "dumb . . . stupid blonde;" insulting and making crude comments about her; yelling and screaming at her; telling her not to come back to work; taking away her telephone and computer; removing her name from a list of employees eligible for annual awards; telling her she was going to be fired; and other similar abusive behavior.

Continue reading "Jury To Decide If Employer Must Pay Punitive Damages in Sexual Harassment Case" »

The Sexual Harassment
Last week, the New Jersey Appellate Division clarified what a company must prove before its anti-harassment policy can protect it from a sexual harassment claim. The case, Allen v. Adecco, involves Jessica Allen, an employee who worked for the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) through an employment firm, Adecco. According to Ms. Allen, her supervisor, Jacques Coles, sexually harassed her. For example, she says Mr. Coles made sexual comments to her, commented about her clothes, asked about her dates, told her he wanted to date her, described her lips and breasts, described how he thought she would act during a sexual encounter, described a sexual fantasy involving her, used graphic and vulgar language, touched her back, thighs and buttocks, pulled her undergarment, brushed against her, called her "sexy," and referred to himself as her "future husband."

Ms. Allen's Objections to the Harassment
Ms. Allen also says she objected to Mr. Coles' harassment. In response, he claimed she wanted him, and liked what he was doing. When Ms. Allen told Mr. Coles she was going to report the harassment, he told her that nobody would believe her and she would lose her job if she reported him. Based on those threats, Ms. Allen did not report Mr. Coles' sexual harassment for more than a month.

Within hours after Ms. Allan finally filed a complaint about the sexual harassment, UMDNJ transferred Mr. Coles to another position in the same building. However, Mr. Coles continued to harass her and began to retaliate. UMDNJ eventually transferred Ms. Allen to a new position in another building, and the harassment stopped.

UMDNJ's Anti-Harassment Policy
The trial court dismissed Ms. Allen's case, finding that because UMDNJ had an anti-harassment policy and stopped the harassment soon after Ms. Allen complained, the company was not legally responsible. However, the New Jersey Appellate Division disagreed, and instead ruled that a jury should decide whether UMDNJ's anti-harassment policy was "effective" and "active." Under New Jersey law, only effective and active anti-harassment policies provides a company with a complete defense to sexual harassment committed by one of its supervisors.

According to the Appellate Division's decision, an anti-harassment is "effective" and "active" only if it:

• Is published or provided to employees;
• Requires anti-harassment training;
• Is completely committed to intolerance of harassment;
• Is effective in prohibiting harassment;
• Includes formal and informal complaint structures;
• Has an effective and practical grievance process;
• Includes ways for the employer to confirm the policy and complaint procedures are working properly; and
• Workers, supervisors, and managers are trained how to recognize and prevent unlawful harassment.

The Appellate Division concluded that a jury needed to decide whether UMDNJ's anti-harassment policy met these requirements. As a result, it sent the case back for a trial at which a jury can decide whether UMDNJ is liable for Mr. Coles sexually harassing Ms. Allen.

Continue reading "Jury Must Decide Whether Anti-Harassment Policy Protects Employer From Sexual Harassment Claim" »

Earlier this year, New York State's highest court ruled that, under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), employers are strictly liable for harassment and discrimination committed by supervisors. The case, Zakrzewska v. The New School, concludes that an affirmative defense available to employers under federal anti-discrimination laws does not apply under the NYCHRL.

The case involves Dominika Zakrzewska, a student at The New School who also worked part time in the school's Academic Computing Center. Ms. Zakrzewska claims her immediate supervisor, Kwang-Wen Pan, sent her harassing emails and otherwise sexually harassed her. She eventually complained to school officials about the harassment. She also claims Mr. Pan began to secretly monitor her Internet use at work, in retaliation for her accusing him of sexual harassment. Ms. Zakrzewska sued Mr. Pan and The New School in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the NYCHRL.

As the New York Court of Appeals explained, under federal anti-discrimination laws a company can avoid liability for harassment committed by one of its supervisors if it can prove that: (1) the employee did not suffer an adverse employment action, such as being fired, demoted, or given an unfavorable work assignment for a discriminatory reason, (2) the company took prompt and reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassment once it learned about it, and (3) the employee unreasonably failed to use an opportunity the employer provided to help prevent or correct the harassment, such as filing a complaint under the company's anti-discrimination policy. This defense, which comes from the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, is known as the Faragher-Ellerth defense.

In Zakrzewska, the District Judge asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit whether the Faragher-Ellerth defense is available under the NYCHRL. The Second Circuit then asked the New York Court of Appeals to answer the same question. The Court of Appeals concluded that the defense is not available under NYCHRL. Rather, under the NYCHRL employers are strictly liable for harassment committed by their managers and supervisors. This means a company can be held liable for harassment by a supervisor even if the employee who was harassed never reported it and the company was unaware the harassment occurred. The Court of Appeals also indicated that employers can be held liable for harassment by non-supervisors if it knew or should have known about the harassment, but either permitted it to happen or failed to immediate take appropriate actions to stop it.

Continue reading "Employers Strictly Liable for Supervisors' Sexual Harassment Under New York City Human Rights Law" »

On June 29, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a federal appellate court which handles federal appeals from New York, ruled that a supervisor's death threats to an employee can be evidence to support a sexual harassment case. The case, Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corporation, involves Sharon Kaytor's allegations that her boss, Daniel McCarthy, sexually harassed her. Some of Ms. Kaytor's allegations are sexual in nature. For example, she claims Mr. McCarthy complimented her clothing, told her she looked good for a woman her age, stared at her body, leered at her, made it clear he "had designs" on her, told the entire office she had a "flat ass," gave her a pussy willow bush as a gift for Administrative Professional's Day, said she was about to "spread her legs" for her doctor, and referred to her upcoming appointment with her gynecologist as "going where every man wanted to be." But some of Ms. Kaytor claims are not sexual at all, and have no obvious connection to the fact that she is a woman. Specifically, she claims McCarthy told her he wanted to choke her and that he wanted to see her in a coffin, at least six times each.

The trial court dismissed all of Ms. Kaytor's claims before her case could get to a trial, finding she had not proven the sexual harassment was severe or frequent enough to create a hostile work environment. It did so partially because it did not count the death threats as part of her sexual harassment claim, since they were not sexual in nature. The trial court also dismissed Ms. Kaytor's claim that the company retaliated against her when it transferred her to work for another supervisor the day after she complained to the Human Resources (HR) department about the harassment, and in that new position took away some of her job responsibilities, gave her very little work to do, changed her work hours, isolated her, and repeatedly summoned her to unnecessary meetings with HR after she complained to HR about the sexual harassment.

But the Second Circuit disagreed. It ruled that although an employee with a sexual harassment claim must prove the harassment was based on her gender, the harassment does not necessarily have to be based on sexual desire. As a result, although Mr. McCarthy's death threats were not sexual and did not refer to Ms. Kaytor's gender, when considered together with all of the other evidence of sexual harassment, a jury could find he threatened her because she is a woman. The Court reached this conclusion even though Mr. McCarthy also threatened to choke a male employee, since otherwise a male employee could get away with sexual harassment by occasionally harassing male workers even though his real targets are women.

The Court also found that Ms. Kaytor should have an opportunity to prove her retaliation claim. It ruled that a jury could find that the company, in effect, demoted her when it reassigned her work and reduced her job responsibilities right after she complained to HR. A demotion can be retaliatory, even when it does not lower an employee's salary or job title, if it is bad enough to discourage other reasonable employees from coming forward with discrimination or harassment claims. As a result, the appellate court concluded that although the company claims it transferred Ms. Kaytor to separate her from her manager while it was investigating her sexual harassment claim, a jury could find that the company was harassing her. Accordingly, the Second Circuit sent Ms. Kaytor's case back to the lower court, for a trial.

Continue reading "Federal Court Rules Death Threats Can Support Sexual Harassment Claim" »