New Jersey Courts have recognized that workplace harassment based on race or other protected class such as age does not have to be directed at a specific complaining employee for it to comprise a hostile work environment. When workers think of race harassment, they sometimes think the harasser must target a specific individual, and such person may have an actionable claim. Newly proposed federal government guidelines that have not yet been written into regulations, have a broader definition of harassment based on workers being in a legally protected class, and as to which workers may be able to bring a claim. The proposed guidelines are more in keeping with what is already New Jersey law as to who may have a hostile work environment claim.
Hostile Work Environment when Offensive Conduct Not Directed at Complaining Employee
An employee’s work environment can be affected by racially, sexist, ageist, etc., offensive conduct, even when that conduct is directed at a different employee. However, the more directly the offending conduct affects the employee who complains, the more probative it is that the complaining employee or plaintiff may have a valid a hostile work environment claim.
I have successfully represented numerous employees who experienced racial, age, sex, and sexual orientation discrimination and harassment on the job, and was successful in getting them monetary compensation for their pain and suffering. If you are a NJ employee whose work environment has become hostile because of your race or other legally protected class, or you find yourself in a situation with inadequate job security because of the aforementioned issues, you should contact this office today for a free consultation.
Offensive Conduct That Is Directed at Other Persons
Offensive conduct that is directed at other persons in the same protected class as the complaining employee, also may contribute to a hostile work environment for the worker alleging that her/his work environment has become hostile. Courts have held that in some instances, considering the totality of the circumstances, the offensive conduct may even occur outside of the complainant’s presence if:
1.) the person complaining about a hostile work environment becomes aware of the conduct during the course of her/his employment, and
2.) the offensive conduct is sufficiently related to the person’s work environment.
By way of example, in Ellis v. Houston, 742 F.3d 307 (8th Cir. 2014), the court concluded that the district court erred in evaluating the plaintiffs’ § 1981 and § 1983 racial harassment claims by examining in isolation harassment personally experienced by each plaintiff, rather than additionally considering the totality of the offensive conduct directed at others, although every plaintiff did not hear every offensive remark but each plaintiff became aware of all of the conduct. The court found that the employees produced evidence that over a period of months they underwent a telling of racist jokes and comments at daily roll call in front of the whole first shift and not only were these comments made in the presence of their supervisors, but their supervisors actively joined in them. The evidence revealed acts, comments, and inaction by the sergeant sufficient to make out prima facie harassment claims against him, which claims must be reinstated and remanded. The court found existing precedent put the supervisors on notice that such actions would violate these workers’ constitutional rights. The court found that claims of retaliation that had been dismissed should be reinstated, because the retaliatory acts taken against the employee by the lieutenants were materially adverse employment actions sufficient to support a prima facie case of illegal retaliation.
In Adams v. Austal, U.S.A., LLC, 754 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2014), the court stated that employees could base their racial harassment claims on offensive conduct of which they were aware. This appeal involved complaints of a racially hostile work environment at a shipyard in Mobile, Alabama. The complaints alleged harassment that included displays of Confederate flags, vulgar racial graffiti in the men's restroom, appearances of nooses, and utterances of racial slurs. For almost ten years, the employer Austal repeatedly scrubbed the graffiti from the restroom walls until it finally wised up and painted the walls black. For the most part, the graffiti then ceased. Eventually, over 20 African-American current and former employees of Austal filed complaints of racial discrimination. The district court granted summary judgments against the claims of 13 of the employees on the ground that their work environments were not objectively hostile. The district court divided the claims of the remaining plaintiffs to be adjudicated in multiple jury trials. The appeal concerned the 13 orders granting summary judgment in favor of the employer and the jury verdicts against two of the plaintiffs who went to trial, all of which involve claims of a hostile work environment.
In the appeal, the Adams v. Austal Court had to decide whether an employee may rely on evidence of racial harassment of which he is not personally aware to prove that his work environment was objectively hostile. The court concluded that 1.) although they have held that an employee may introduce evidence of harassment which he is not personally aware to prove that his employer is responsible for the harassment or to rebut an affirmative defense, 2.) the Court has not ruled that this kind of "me too" evidence can prove that a work environment is objectively hostile.
The court therefore held that 1.) an employee alleging a hostile work environment cannot complain about conduct of which he was oblivious for the purpose of proving that his work environment was objectively hostile. 2.) the court nevertheless concluded that seven of the employees presented sufficient evidence that their work environments were objectively hostile, and the court vacated the lower court summary judgments against those employees.
I am a compassionate and aggressive employment law attorney and have successfully represented numerous employees, both public and private, who experienced racial discrimination and harassment on the job, and was successful in getting them monetary compensation for their pain and suffering.
If you quit your job, you may lose right to prevail in a lawsuit
In many instances of discrimination or a hostile work environment, if you quit your job, you may lose right to prevail in a lawsuit unless you first take certain legally required measures to preserve your job while you are still employed. If you are thinking of resigning, or think you will be fired, or have already been terminated, you should contact this office immediately for a free consultation to discuss your options in the safest way for you.
If you are being subjected to such unlawful workplace discrimination or believe you are being pushed out of your job, contact Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law today for a free consultation. I accept discrimination and whistleblower cases from all over New Jersey and have locations in Southern, Central and Northern NJ to meet with clients.
Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law represents workers throughout the entire state, including Hackensack, Jersey City, Newark, Irvington, Orange, East Orange, Trenton, Paterson, Montclair, Elizabeth, North Brunswick, Cherry Hill, Vineland, Union, Plainfield, Hamilton Township, Lakewood, Edison, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Franklin, Lakewood, and in every NJ County, including Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, Essex, Monmouth, Somerset, Ocean, Union, Camden, Passaic, Morris, Gloucester, Atlantic, Burlington, Camden Counties.