Harassment discrimination claims in New Jersey brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination do not require an element of intent, similar to Federal harassment discrimination under Title VII. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination follows many of the standards of the federal Title VII cases in determining the standards for a valid discrimination harassment claim brought under the NJ statute. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. To state a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e, the harassment based on being a member of a protected class, must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. New Jersey Ethnic Discrimination Lawyer.
The Absence of Discriminatory Intent Does Not Redeem an Otherwise Unlawful Employment Practice.
Intent Is Not an Issue in Harassment Discrimination Claims
Don’t sit on your rights. If you are being harassed at work because you are a member of protected class, you should contact this law office immediately for a free consultation. I have represented employees who were illegally harassed/discriminated against, and was successful in recovering financial compensation for their emotional pain and suffering, and moneys for lost wages, both for past lost wages and projected future lost wages. New Jersey Race Discrimination Lawyer. This law office accepts cases from all over New Jersey and has locations in Southern, Central and Northern NJ to meet with clients. Call today for a free consultation.
In Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, (1991) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, similar to cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, that intent was not an issue in the harassment claim. The Court established that is because Title VII is not a fault-based tort scheme. “Title VII is aimed at the consequences or effects of an employment practice and not at the . . . motivation" of co-workers or employers...... (the absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem an otherwise unlawful employment practice)”. Bergen County, New Jersey Sex Discrimination Lawyer.
In harassment cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e, the courts prefer to analyze harassment from the victim's perspective. By way of example, if it is a harassment based on the sex of a woman, a complete understanding of the victim's view requires, among other things, an analysis of the different perspectives of men and women. Conduct that many men consider unobjectionable may offend many women. Likewise, if it is a harassment based on the race or ethnic origin of an African American, a complete understanding of the victim's view requires, among other things, an analysis of the different perspectives of an African and a Caucasian.
See NJ Race Discrimination Attorney, Race Harassment Causes Hostile Work Environment Even When Conduct Not Directed at Complaining Employee.
In Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, (1991) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1991, the lower district court had held that appellant did not state a prima facie case of sexual harassment arising from a hostile working environment because the co-worker's offensive conduct was "isolated and genuinely trivial." However, upon review, the United States Court of Appeals established the reasonable victim standard for sexual harassment. Applying the standard to appellant's case, the Appellate Court concluded that a reasonable woman could consider the co-worker's behavior to be sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of appellant's employment and create an abusive working environment. Well-intentioned compliments by co-workers or supervisors can form the basis of a sexual harassment cause of action
The Court stated, “The reasonable victim standard we adopt today classifies conduct as unlawful sexual harassment even when harassers do not realize that their conduct creates a hostile working environment. Well-intentioned compliments by co-workers or supervisors can form the basis of a sexual harassment cause of action if a reasonable victim of the same sex as the plaintiff would consider the comments sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter a condition of employment and create an abusive working environment.”
In Spencer v. General Elec. Co., 894 F.2d 651 (1990), the court stated that unwanted solicitations and horseplay can be advances of a sexual nature. See NJ Employment Attorney, Is this Sexual Harassment Discrimination or Hostile Work Environment?
It’s Harasser's Conduct Which Must Be Pervasive or Severe
Th Ellison Court made it clear that is the harasser's conduct which must be pervasive or severe, not the alteration in the conditions of employment. The Court stated, “Surely, employees need not endure sexual harassment until their psychological well-being is seriously affected to the extent that they suffer anxiety and debilitation.” The Court held that although an isolated epithet by itself fails to support a cause of action for a hostile environment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e, protection of employees from discrimination comes into play long before the point where victims of illegal harassment require psychiatric assistance.
The Ellison v. Brady Court reversed the lower, District Court's decision that the Plaintiff did not allege a prima facie case of sexual harassment due to a hostile working environment, and it remanded the case for further proceedings.
In Ellison v. Brady, the Appellate Court, held that a held a hostile environment based on sex exists when an employee can show:
(1) that he or she was subjected to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature;
(2) that this conduct was unwelcome; and
(3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.
See Extreme Race Discrimination including Nooses, KKK Emblems, and Racist Names at Work.
A case of race harassment brought under Title VII was Rodgers v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 668 (1993). The court repeatedly has recognized that racial harassment is an independent basis for a Title VII claim. Title VII prohibits an employer from engaging in racial harassment that creates a hostile or offensive working environment. Title VII affords employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. Employment/Civil Rights Law.
The existence of racial harassment in a hostile work environment involves an application of facts, i.e., the specific discriminatory conditions alleged by the plaintiff, to the standards in the law governing the existence of racial harassment and hostile work environment discrimination.
In Rodgers v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co., the court discussed the conjunctive approach allows the court to consider the likely effect of a defendant's conduct upon a reasonable person's ability to perform his or her work and upon his or her well-being as well as the actual effect upon the particular plaintiff bringing the claim.
In this matter, the Plaintiff, an African-American, worked for defendant. He alleged defendant discriminated against him by creating a racially hostile environment. Plaintiff's supervisor made derogatory remarks about the intelligence of blacks, used racial epithets, and made other racially offensive comments. Plaintiff was acutely stressed and sickened by the environment. He sued under Title VII and the court found the ongoing barrage of racist comments and taunts contributed significantly to his stressful condition that compelled plaintiff and thus satisfied the subjective prong of the test.
Pervasive or Severe
Similar to New Jersey Law against Discrimination, the harassing conduct must be pervasive or severe, not pervasive and severe. The elements of “pervasive” or “severe” are inversely proportionate, Similar to NJ Law against Discrimination, the required showing of severity or seriousness of the harassing conduct in cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e, varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct.
Don’t Sit on Your Rights
I have represented employees whose employers committed illegal acts against them, and was successful in recovering financial compensation for lost wages, both for past lost wages and projected future lost wages, and for their emotional pain and suffering. If you think your employer is committing illegal acts against you, you should contact this office immediately for a free consultation. I accept employment cases from all over New Jersey and have locations in Southern, Central and Northern NJ to meet with clients.
Contact Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law today for a free consultation.
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 every NJ County, including Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, Essex, Monmouth, Somerset, Ocean, Union, Camden, Passaic, Morris, Gloucester, Atlantic, Burlington, Camden Counties.