The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., prohibits discrimination and harassment in employment, based on being a member of a protected class under the statute. Among the protected classes listed in the statute are: race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, familial status, disability, nationality, sex (which includes pregnancy), gender identity or expression.
The plaintiff does not have to prove that the employer or the alleged harasser intended to harass plaintiff or intended to create a hostile working environment. The employer’s or alleged harasser’s intent to cause harm is not at issue.
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.
While typically, it is the harasser’s intention to make the employee feel uncomfortable and/or threatened, whether or not the harasser deliberately intended make the employee feel uncomfortable or threatened, is not an issue in cases brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Bergen County, New Jersey Sex Discrimination Lawyer.
For example, persons who are sexist, may not realize how their own internalized sex-biased assumptions result in a glaring disparity between their treatment of women and that of men, resulting in making comments such as, "This project requires a high degree of analytical ability so I had to assign it to a man." People with racial biases frequently are not aware of how racist they actually are, viewing a person’s capability based on the person’s race. New Jersey Race Discrimination Lawyer. This internalized ignorant racist prejudice can result in making extremely ignorant and hurtful racist comments such as, “You are a fast learner for a Black person.” See NJ Race Discrimination Attorney, Race Harassment Causes Hostile Work Environment Even When Conduct Not Directed at Complaining Employee.
To State a Claim for Hostile Work Environment Harassment, a Plaintiff must Allege:
1. conduct that occurred because of the employee’s protected class. i.e., the employee’s race, sex, ethnicity or ethnic origin, age, sexual orientation, etc., and,
2. that a reasonable person who is a member of the same protected class as the Plaintiff, i.e., a reasonable African-American when the Plaintiff is African-American; that a reasonable woman when the plaintiff is a woman; or; or a reasonable person over 60 years of age when the Plaintiff is over 60, etc.
3. that this reasonable person who is in the same protected class as the Plaintiff (and definitely not from the perspective of an employee who is not in the same protected class as the Plaintiff) would consider the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
4. the conduct did alter the conditions of employment and create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
In a seminal case of harassment in the workplace, Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, 132 N.J. 587 (1992) the NJ Supreme Court had to decide a case of gender or sexual harassment. The Court established that for the purposes of establishing and examining a cause of action in this matter to determine if there was a case of sexual harassment where the Plaintiff was woman, the test can be broken down into four prongs, the complained-of conduct:
(1) would not have occurred but for the employee's gender; and it was
(2) severe or pervasive enough to make a
(3) reasonable woman believes that
(4) the conditions of employment are altered and the working environment is hostile or abusive.
In Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, the NJ Supreme Court held that the Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-1 et seq., is not a fault or intent-based statute. A female plaintiff need not show that the perpetrator intentionally discriminated or harassed her, or intended to create a hostile work environment. The perpetrator's intent is simply not an element of the cause of action. Plaintiff need show only that the harassment would not have occurred but for her sex.
The standard is whether a person of the same legally protected class would find the work environment to be hostile. Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587, 603-04 (1993), (holding that when a plaintiff in sexual harassment case is female, the reasonable woman standard must be used).
In a race harassment case, the NJ Supreme Court held that single utterance of an epithet can, under particular circumstances, create a hostile work environment, Taylor v. Metzger, 152 N.J. 490 (1998). The Taylor v. Metzger Court held that a racial slur uttered by a sheriff directed against a subordinate officer is not, as a matter of law, a mere insult or triviality. A rational jury could reasonably conclude that defendant's conduct was atrocious and intolerable. In order to demonstrate hostile work environment, a plaintiff must allege that unwelcome conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment. Under the chosen standard, severe or pervasive conduct, one incident of harassing conduct can create a hostile work environment, as in Taylor v. Metzger. See Monday, January 8, 2018 Extreme Race Discrimination including Nooses, KKK Emblems, and Racist Names at Work.
While it is certainly possible that a single incident, if severe enough, can establish a prima facie case of a hostile work environment, it will be a rare and extreme case in which a single incident will be so severe that it would, from the perspective of a reasonable person situated as the Plaintiff, make the working environment hostile.
In another case of harassment decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court, the harassment was based on religious faith or ancestry, Cutler v. Dorn, 196 N.J. 419, 430 (2008). The Court in Cutler v. Dorn explained that "severe or pervasive" conduct must be conduct that would make a reasonable person of the same religious faith or ancestry as the Plaintiff believe that the conditions of employment are altered and that the working environment is hostile. The Cutler v. Dorn Court held although the Lehmann case had involved sexual harassment in the workplace, the same test applies generally to hostile work claims based on other protected classes as well. The court held that, “where, as here, a hostile work environment claim involves allegations of harassment based on religious faith or ancestry, the inquiry is whether a reasonable person of plaintiff’s religion or ancestry would consider the workplace acts and comments ... sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile working environment”. New Jersey Ethnic Discrimination Lawyer.
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination follows many of the standards of the federal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e cases in determining the standards for a valid discrimination harassment claim brought under the New Jersey statute. Employment/Civil Rights Law. In Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (1991), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that harassment cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e, the courts prefer to analyze the harassment from the victim's perspective. Because Ellison v. Brady was a case of sex harassment, the court held that 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.
This analysis applies to other protected classes as well, i.e., the analysis of the harassment from the victim's perspective. If it is race harassment of a Black employee, the analysis of the harassment would be from a Black employee’s perspective.
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.