When you report discrimination at work, it can feel like the people at the top of the corporate ladder are untouchable. A recent federal decision from the District of New Jersey, Dominguez v. Novo Nordisk Inc., shows that senior executives can be held accountable when they allow discrimination or retaliation.
For N
What Happened in Dominguez v. Novo Nordisk
The plaintiff, Roxann Dominguez, worked for Novo Nordisk as a Regional Account Executive and later as the Director of National Accounts Strategic Planning. Based in Texas, she frequently interacted with the company’s leadership in New Jersey, where much of its operations were centered.
Ms. Dominguez’s early career at the company was marked by success. She received strong performance evaluations, maximum bonuses, and recognition as “top talent.” But her lawsuit alleges that the work environment deteriorated sharply after she witnessed and spoke up about discriminatory behavior.
Specifically, Ms. Dominguez’ described several key events:
- At a team meeting, a senior male director allegedly screamed at a female colleague and called her a sexist slur. Management did not intervene, so Ms. Dominguez and another a female coworker defended their colleague.
- Ms. Dominguez later reported this behavior, along with a separate incident involving homophobic comments at a work event. Her supervisor said he would report the behavior to the Human Resources Department, but failed to do so.
- Ms. Dominguez claimed that Novo Nordisk routinely excluded women from high-visibility industry event. The company instead selected men for these opportunities because they supposedly “needed visibility,” and later promoted those men.
- Ms. Dominguez’s supervisor made repeated comments tying her career path to motherhood, questioning what “kind of mother” she was, and suggesting other positions at the company that would be “better for mothers.”
According to her complaint, Novo Nordisk’s retaliatory behavior escalated after Ms. Dominguez reported these issues. She stated that the company excluded her from meetings, stripped her of responsibilities, and denied her request to have a third person present during meetings with her supervisor. She claims that, after she filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the company cut her bonus and raise in half.
During a later restructuring, Novo Nordisk eliminated her position, and she was the only member of her team it did not reassign somewhere else. She further alleged that high-level executives knew about repeated concerns about her supervisor’s treatment of women, received negative survey feedback about him, but still approved his decisions that harmed her career.
The Legal Issue: Aiding and Abetting Under the NJLAD
In addition to her federal claims, Ms. Dominguez alleged violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, including “aiding and abetting” liability against three individual executives.
The defendants moved to dismiss the aiding-and-abetting claim for two of those executives, arguing that:
- They were not her direct supervisors, and
- Her claims did not plausibly allege they knowingly assisted discriminatory or retaliatory actions.
The court rejected those arguments and allowed the claims to proceed.
The judge explained that:
- A person does not need to be a worker’s direct supervisor to be liable for aiding and abetting. Rather, it is enough that they hold supervisory authority and participate in or approve key employment decisions.
- Senior executives may be personally liable when they approve pay cuts, deny opportunities, or participate in termination decisions that are tied to discrimination or retaliation.
- Aiding and abetting can include active involvement, or passive involvement such as ignoring known harassment or discrimination.
According to the opinion, the ultimate question is whether the individual gave “substantial assistance” to the unlawful discrimination or retaliation.
Based on Ms. Dominguez’s allegations, the court concluded that the executives’ actions could constitute substantial assistance. As a result, it allowed the claims against those individual defendants to move forward to discovery.
This ruling does not determine whether Ms. Dominguez ultimately will prevail. It simply recognizes that her allegations were sufficient to allow her to advance to the next phase.
Why This Case Matters for New Jersey Employees
This decision provides several important takeaways for New Jersey workers:
- Corporate hierarchy does not shield individuals. Senior executives may be held personally responsible when they participate in discriminatory or retaliatory decisions.
- Documentation is key. The plaintiff’s detailed account of who approved what decisions—and when—played a major role in the court’s analysis.
- Inaction can be actionable. When leaders know about discrimination and look the other way, their silence can support an aiding-and-abetting claim.
- Retaliation claims remain strong under the NJLAD. Even subtle shifts in responsibilities, pay, or career opportunities can be treated as retaliatory when it is tied to a protected activity.
Workers who experience discrimination should document what happens, save relevant emails or texts, and note who participated in major employment decisions.
Speak with a Bergen County Employment Lawyer
If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination, retaliation, or harassment at work, Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. is here to help. Our firm represents employees across New Jersey in cases involving the NJLAD, federal anti-discrimination laws, and claims against individual decision-makers.
To discuss your situation with an experienced Bergen County employment lawyer, call (201) 777-2250 or contact us online to schedule a confidential consultation.