Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm News
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: February 20, 2015
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFollowing a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, these lawsuits will be a bit easier for employers to defend, specifically if they have anti-harassment policies and procedures in place.
In Aguas v. State of New Jersey, the state’s highest court addressed two significant issues that impact sexual harassment/hostile workplace claims: (1) the impact of an employer’s anti-harassment policy on an employee’s claims of negligence or recklessness and vicarious liability; and (2) the definition of a supervisor for purposes of a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim. In what is regarded as being a win for employers, in the case of issue #1, the court followed federal legal precedent by holding that having a strong anti-harassment policy in place can shield businesses from liability so long as the worker did not suffer an adverse employment action. However, with regard to the second issue, the court declined to adopt the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrow definition of supervisor, as set forth in Vance v. Ball State University, and adopted the much fuzzier definition applied by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for purposes of imposing vicarious liability.
Plaintiff Ilda Aguas, an employee with the Department of Corrections (DOC), filed a complaint against the State of New Jersey, alleging violations of the LAD due to the sexual harassment/hostile work environment created by her supervisors. The allegations included that she was subjected to repeated sexual advances at the hands of her male “supervisors.” Aguas did not allege that the DOC took any tangible employment action against her.
In 1999, the DOC implemented a written policy prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, and mandated that all employees be trained with respect to it. The policy included procedures with regard to reporting, investigating, and remediating claims of misconduct, and specifically “encouraged” employees to promptly report incidents of harassment. When Aguas was hired in 2004, she received a copy of the policy. Despite her knowledge of the policy, the plaintiff did not file a written complaint with the DOC. However, the DOC learned of Aguas’ allegations and commenced an investigation by interviewing 20 witnesses. At the end of the investigation, it found that the claim harassment was “unsubstantiated.”
The trial court ultimately dismissed the sexual harassment suit on summary judgment. Although it found that the plaintiff established a prima facie showing of sexual harassment, it concluded that employer liability was inappropriate because the defendant adopted and published a proper anti-discrimination policy and engaged in a thorough investigation of the claims and there was no evidence of a tangible adverse employment action. The Appellate Division affirmed.
The New Jersey Supreme Court formally adopted the tests first set forth in 1998 by the United States Supreme Court in Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton. Accordingly, in a hostile work environment case, the employer may assert the affirmative defense that: 1) it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior;” 2) “the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise:” and 3) no adverse tangible employment action was taken against the plaintiff employee.
The court also addressed the definition of a supervisor for purposes of claims based on sexual harassment giving rise to a hostile work environment. As noted above, the court declined to adopt the more restrictive definition of “supervisor” recently prescribed by the Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University. As previously discussed on this blog, the majority held that an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.
Instead, the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted the less precise definition used by the EEOC that includes not only employees granted the authority to make tangible employment decisions, but also those placed in charge of the complainant’s daily work activities. Accordingly, the alleged harasser will be deemed to be the complainant’s supervisor if that employee has the authority to take or recommend tangible employment actions or directs the complainant’s day-to-day activities in the workplace. This conclusion should be concerning to employers as it significantly increases the employer’s potential exposure to strict liability where a tangible employment action has been taken.
The NJ Supreme Court’s decision reinforces what should already be understood by employers: it imperative that all employers have strong anti-harassment/discrimination policies in place. In addition to enacting such policies and procedures, it is also essential to provide anti-harassment training to all employees and supervisors and to be prepared to quickly respond to and thoroughly investigate all sexual harassment complaints in accordance with published policies and procedures. Secondly, we strongly recommend that employers evaluate who is a supervisor by establishing bright lines in the chain of command and determining which persons may exercise supervisory authority through the adoption of proper job descriptions.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Scarinci Hollenbeck Partner Christopher D. Warren Named to New Jersey Supreme Court District VI Ethics Committee Little Falls, NJ — September 5, 2025 — Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is proud to announce that Christopher D. Warren, Partner, has been appointed to serve on the New Jersey Supreme Court District VI Ethics Committee for the term 2025–2029. Mr. Warren brings more than […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Scarinci Hollenbeck Congratulates Theodore A. Schwartz Scholarship Recipient Adrienne Aiken Little Falls, NJ — July 21, 2025 — Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC established the Theodore A. Schwartz Scholarship for Environmental Law to recognize the contributions of retired partner Theodore “Ted” Schwartz and support the next generation of environmental lawyers. Adrienne Aiken, the recipient of the 2025 […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Ten Scarinci Hollenbeck Attorneys Recognized in 2026 Edition of Best Lawyers in America© Little Falls NJ – August 28, 2025 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that ten attorneys have been recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. First published in 1983, Best Lawyers is universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Scarinci Hollenbeck Partner Recognized for Continued Impact on Industrial Real Estate Industry Little Falls, NJ — July 25, 2025 — Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC Partner Donald “Don” Pepe was recently recognized as a 2025 Influencer in Industrial Real Estate by GlobeSt, a leading commercial real estate publication. The GlobeSt award recognizes the professionals, teams, and companies […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
NYC Real Estate and Litigation Attorney Ryan O. Miller and Team Join Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC New York City, NY – August 13, 2025 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC has strengthened its Real Estate and Litigation practices with the addition of four New York City-based attorneys. Ryan Miller, who joins as a partner, is well known for […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Bloomberg Law Podcast Discusses Shaquille O’Neil FTX Settlement With Ron Bienstock Little Falls, NJ – June 24, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC Partner and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property and Entertainment & Media departments Ronald S. Bienstock recently joined the Bloomberg Law podcast to discuss Shaquille O’Neal settling a class-action lawsuit over his FTX endorsement. […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!