Nuness v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.
325 F. Supp. 3d 535
D.N.J.2018Background
- Nuness, an African-American line picker at Simon & Schuster, was called a racial slur (“nigglet,” combining the N‑word and “piglet”) by co‑worker Christopher Hankins on March 12, 2015; a co‑worker witnessed the remark and reported it.
- Nuness reported the incident to her supervisor and HR; HR investigated, suspended Hankins for three days, issued him a final warning, and later fired him weeks after additional misconduct reports.
- Nuness returned to work briefly but refused to continue due to discomfort; she requested shift reassignment (or that Hankins be reassigned) but contends HR failed to implement practical measures that would have prevented re‑exposure in shared areas.
- Nuness stopped reporting to work and was terminated for failing to return; she later declined an offer to rehire and sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) alleging hostile work environment (racial harassment), constructive discharge, and retaliatory discharge.
- The employer moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) the single incident was not “severe or pervasive,” the employer’s response was adequate, Nuness voluntarily resigned (no constructive discharge), and there was no causal link for retaliation.
- The Court denied summary judgment on all claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact about severity of the slur, adequacy of remedial measures (vicarious/direct employer liability), whether conditions were objectively intolerable (constructive discharge), and causal connection for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (severe or pervasive) | Single, highly offensive racial slur directed at Nuness (with sexual overtones) plus inadequate employer response can be sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment | One isolated remark by a coworker is at most an offensive utterance, not actionable as severe or pervasive | Denied summary judgment: a reasonable jury could find the slur (and context/response) sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment under NJLAD |
| Vicarious/direct employer liability | Employer failed to take remedial measures reasonably calculated to stop harassment (remedy left Nuness exposed in shared spaces) | Employer promptly investigated, suspended, warned, and later fired the harasser—remedy was adequate | Denied: genuine dispute whether employer’s remedial plan was reasonably calculated to end harassment; employer may be liable for inadequate remediation |
| Constructive discharge | Requiring Nuness to return to work in the same context without effective protection made conditions objectively intolerable, forcing her to resign | Nuness voluntarily quit without exhausting alternatives; single incident insufficient for constructive discharge | Denied: factual disputes (severity, employer response, Nuness’s reasonable efforts/requested alternatives) preclude summary judgment on constructive discharge |
| Retaliation | Nuness’s complaint to HR was protected activity; termination shortly after (and the employer’s insistence she return) supports causation | Termination was for job abandonment/absenteeism, breaking any causal link to protected complaint | Denied: close temporal proximity and disputed facts about whether absenteeism was caused by inadequate remedial action permit a jury inference of causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Metzger, 152 N.J. 490 (N.J. 1998) (single racial epithet can be severe enough to create hostile work environment)
- Lehmann v. Toys R Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (N.J. 1993) (adopts severe-or-pervasive standard and employer duty to remedy harassment)
- Payton v. N.J. Turnpike Auth., 148 N.J. 524 (N.J. 1997) (employer liability for negligent failure to take measures reasonably calculated to end harassment)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (federal standard for severe or pervasive workplace harassment)
- Suders v. Easton, 542 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2004) (constructive discharge requires working conditions so intolerable a reasonable person would resign)
- Castleberry v. STI Group, 863 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2017) (one isolated, extremely serious incident can support hostile‑work‑environment claim)