129 A.3d 327
N.J.2016Background
- Plaintiff petitioned for certification of the judgment in A-003252-12 to the Court.
- Court discusses Aguas v. State adopting the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense to harassment claims.
- Ellerth/Faragher requires employer to prove, by preponderance, two elements: prevention/crompt correction and employee failure to utilize remedies.
- Court emphasizes that meaningful and effective harassment policies must be established before the alleged harassment.
- Appellate Division misstated the first-prong burden, suggesting prevention or correction alone or post-incident actions could satisfy the defense.
- The petition for certification is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first prong of the Ellerth/Faragher defense was misstated | Aguas requires meaningful pre-incident policies, not post-incident actions. | Panel suggested the defense could be satisfied by prevention or correction actions. | Panel misstatement; only pre-existing meaningful policies can support the defense. |
| Whether petition for certification should be granted | The misstatement affects the decision on summary judgment under Aguas. | Petition should be denied as the panel properly applied Aguas and the record. | Petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguas v. State, 220 N.J. 494 (N.J. 2015) (adopts Ellerth/Faragher defense; requires pre-existing meaningful policies)
- Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (establishes Ellerth/Faragher defense framework)
- Dunkley v. S. Coraluzzo Petroleum Transporters, 441 N.J. Super. 322 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015) (panel misstates burden under Aguas)