Ilda Aguas v. State of New Jersey (072467)
107 A.3d 1250
| N.J. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Ilda Aguas, a corrections officer at Edna Mahan, alleged repeated sexualized conduct by her shift Area Lieutenant (McClish) and supervisory mistreatment by two sergeants, creating a hostile work environment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
- DOC had a written anti-discrimination/anti-harassment policy (training mandated) with an internal complaint procedure through the Equal Employment Division (EED); Aguas received the policy in writing but says she did not receive training and feared retaliation for filing a formal complaint.
- Aguas made verbal reports; EED opened an investigation, interviewed witnesses, and ultimately found her allegations unsubstantiated; Aguas filed suit two days after the EED investigation began alleging hostile work environment and retaliation under the LAD.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the State, finding Aguas established severe and pervasive harassment but that the State proved an affirmative defense based on its policy and investigation; Appellate Division affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certification to decide two central legal questions: (1) the role of an employer anti-harassment policy in negligence/recklessness and vicarious liability claims under Restatement § 219; and (2) how to define “supervisor” for vicarious-liability hostile-work-environment claims under the LAD.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer anti-harassment policy functions as a defense to negligence/recklessness under Restatement § 219(2)(b) | Aguas: policy is relevant but employer bears burden if asserting a formal affirmative defense; plaintiff should not be forced to file formal complaint to preserve claim | State: policy and prompt remedial action demonstrate due care; employee unreasonably failed to use grievance procedure | Policy is a central factor for § 219(2)(b) negligence claims; apply Gaines factors to assess efficacy and fact issues may preclude summary judgment |
| Whether employer may assert Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense to vicarious liability under Restatement § 219(2)(d) when no tangible employment action occurred | Aguas: Lehmann forecloses an affirmative defense for supervisory harassment; employer presumed vicariously liable without regard to policies | State: Ellerth/Faragher applies; employer can avoid liability if it exercised reasonable care and employee unreasonably failed to use corrective measures | Court adopts Ellerth/Faragher: employer may assert two-pronged affirmative defense (reasonable care to prevent/correct; employee unreasonably failed to use measures) when no tangible employment action; employer bears burden to prove defense by preponderance |
| Burden and scope of anti-harassment policy evidence | Aguas: employer cannot meet an affirmative-defense burden on these facts; policy alone insufficient if not effectively enforced | State: written policy, investigation, and remedial steps suffice to show reasonable care | Employer must prove both prongs; ineffective, unenforced, or nominal policies provide no defense; efficacy evaluated under Lehmann/Gaines factors |
| Definition of "supervisor" for vicarious liability under Restatement § 219(2)(d) | Aguas/NELA: broad definition including those who control day-to-day work; McClish had shift authority so is supervisor | State: employer argues more limited definition (e.g., authority to take tangible employment actions) | Court rejects U.S. Supreme Court’s narrower Vance rule; adopts EEOC two-part functional test: an alleged harasser is a supervisor if authorized (1) to take or recommend tangible employment actions, or (2) to direct the complainant’s day-to-day work activities |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (1993) (adopted Restatement § 219 framework for employer liability in hostile-work-environment LAD claims)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (established two‑pronged affirmative defense for employer vicarious liability when no tangible employment action)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (same; framed defense to incentivize employer prevention and remediation)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986) (rejected strict employer liability and endorsed agency principles for supervisory harassment)
- Gaines v. Bellino, 173 N.J. 301 (2002) (identified five factors assessing employer due care and acknowledged affirmative defense availability)
- Cavuoti v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 161 N.J. 107 (1999) (recognized value of effective anti‑harassment policies and a safe‑haven effect for employers)
- Godfrey v. Princeton Theological Seminary, 196 N.J. 178 (2008) (courts may consider an institution’s deterrence measures when assessing vicarious liability)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (U.S. Supreme Court narrowed "supervisor" definition to employees with authority to take tangible employment actions; New Jersey declined to adopt this narrower test)