Nuness v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.
2016 WL 6806338
D.N.J.2016Background
- Nuness, an African-American line picker, alleges a co-worker (Hankins) called her a racial epithet on March 1, 2015; she reported it to supervisors and HR.
- Hankins was suspended for one week, then returned to the same shift and department as Nuness; Nuness repeatedly requested that one of them be moved but alleges requests were denied despite available shifts/departments.
- Nuness informed HR she felt unsafe and said she would contact an attorney; HR responded that if she did not come to work she would be resigning; she was absent ~1 week and her employment ended March 20, 2015.
- Nuness sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) asserting racial harassment (hostile work environment), constructive discharge, and retaliatory discharge; defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court dismissed the racial harassment and constructive discharge claims without prejudice, but denied dismissal of the retaliatory discharge claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Racial harassment (hostile work environment) — severe or pervasive? | A single, highly offensive racial slur by a co-worker can support a hostile environment claim. | One isolated remark (by a non-supervisor) is insufficient; not severe or pervasive. | Dismissed: single co-worker remark insufficient to plead severe or pervasive harassment. |
| Employer vicarious liability for co-worker harassment | Employer failed to remediate and continued to schedule the parties together, showing liability. | Employer took remedial action (suspension) and cannot be held vicariously liable on these facts. | Dismissed (court did not need to decide fully but found plaintiff insufficiently pleaded employer negligence or inadequate policies). |
| Constructive discharge — intolerable conditions? | Continued proximity to harasser after complaint and HR inaction made working conditions intolerable, forcing resignation. | Conduct was not unremitting or egregious enough to meet constructive discharge standard. | Dismissed: allegations do not show the more exacting, intolerable conditions required for constructive discharge. |
| Retaliatory discharge — causation and adverse action? | Complaint to HR and statement about contacting an attorney led to termination; close temporal proximity supports causation. | Plaintiff wasn’t actually terminated (dispute whether resignation vs. termination); dismissal argued. | Denied dismissal: at pleading stage court assumes involuntary separation; temporal proximity and allegations suffice to state retaliation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading requirements and rejecting legal conclusions)
- Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2005) (elements of hostile work environment under NJLAD/Title VII)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (hostile work environment: isolated incidents generally insufficient)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (workplace harassment standard; offensive utterance vs. hostile environment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (totality of circumstances test for hostile environment)
- Shepherd v. Hunterdon Dev. Ctr., 174 N.J. 1 (N.J. standard for constructive discharge)