Articles Posted in Sexual Harassment

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.

As a result, the Appellate Division sent the case back for a trial at which a jury will decide those issues.

Continue reading

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.

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

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

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

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

On January 6, 2010, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that J.T. Tire Service can proceed with its sexual harassment lawsuit against United Rentals North under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. In the case, J.T. Tire alleges that United Rentals terminated its contract with United Rentals because the owner of J.T. Tire, Eileen Totorello, rejected the sexual advances of one of United Rentals’ branch managers, Harold Hinkes.

Specifically, Ms. Totorello alleges that Mr. Hinkes attempted to extort sexual favors from her. She claims that when she initially refused his sexual advances, Mr. Hinkes’ branch temporarily stopped buying tires from J.T. Tire. He only resumed doing business with J.T. Tires after Ms. Totorello agreed to have lunch with him.

Ms. Totorello futher claims that, several years later, Mr. Hinkes kissed her and groped her against her will. When she refused his advances, Mr. Hinkes told her she was making a “very poor business decision.” One month later, United completely stopped doing business with J.T. Tire.

On August 4, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that repeatedly asking a woman out on a date, even when she repeatedly declines the invitations, does not constitute unlawful sexual harassment. More specifically, New Jersey’s highest Court ruled the harassment alleged was not severe or frequent enough to be legally actionable.

The case, Godfrey v. Princeton Theological Seminary, involved Beth Godfrey and Jennifer Kile, two graduate students in their mid twenties, who were repeatedly asked out on dates by William Miller, a tenant of the Seminary who was in his upper sixties. Godrey and Kile sued the Princeton Theological Seminary for permitting a sexually hostile environment.

Since Godfrey and Kile were not employees of the Seminary, they sued under a section of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination that states that “[a]ll persons shall have the opportunity . . . to obtain all the accommodations, advantages . . . and privileges of any place of public accommodation. . . without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, familial status, disability, nationality, sex , gender identity or expression.” Among other things, that section prohibits sexual harassment in many public places. Godfrey and Kile also sued under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and for breach of contract.