Employment Practices Liability
Lehmann v. Toys R Us (1993) | Employer liable for sexual harrassment committed by a supervisor because of the lack of an effective anti-harrassment program.
Mancini v. Teaneck (2002) | Sexual harassment suits subject to the continuous trigger rule.
Hernandez v. Montville BOE (2002) | The trial judge should be very cautious about the overturning the jury’s verdict in CEPA cases.
Gaines v. Bellino (2002) | An employer is responsible for sexual haressment unless there is an effective anti-harassment progam in place.
Nardello v. Voorhees (2005) | Even minor incidents must be considered when determining if there is a pattern of retaliation in a CEPA case.
Maimone v. Atlantic City (2006) | Involuntary transfer out of the detective bureau can be considered as retaliation.
Cutler v. Dorn (2008) | Jokes based on an employee’s religion create a hostile work environment actionable under LAD even if the employee didn’t complain at the time.
Groslinger v. Wyckoff (2009) | Summary judgment affirmed because of the Township’s prompt and consistent enforcement of its personnel policies.
Valentino v. Woodcliff Lake (2011) | Summary judgement affirmed because the employer’s actions were not of the type that would compel a reasonable employee to resign.
Winters v. North Hudson Regional Fire (2012) | Employees who lose with civil service cannot also sue under CEPA.
Farneski v. Hunterdon County (2013) | In a CEPA case, the Court must examine each discrete act to determine whether that act is time barred.
Vaticano v. Edison (2013) | Employees must show competent evidence connecting political activity and an adverse employment action to claim political retaliation.
Hahn v. Edison (2013) | In CEPA cases, employees must establish that the offensive activity poses a threat of public harm, not merely private harm only to the aggrieved employee.
Buonanno v. Elmwood Park (2014) | The elimination of the plaintiff’s position was improper because a council member who had a conflict of interest failed to recuse from the deliberations and vote.
Dunkley v. Coraluzza Petroleum (2014) | Summary judgement affirmed because employer had an anti-harrassment program that met the standard in Lehmann and employer acted promptly when the plaintiff reported harrassment.
Kownacki v. Saddle Brook BOE(2014) | In a CEPA case, the statute of limitations tolls after one year from the last alleged event that could be actionable under CEPA.
Urbanski v. Edison (2014) | Filing a CEPA case bars filing a LAD case for the same incidents.
Aguas v. New Jersey (2015) | The employer may assert as an affirmative defense that it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior,” and “the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided,” provided that the employer has not taken an adverse tangible employment action against the plaintiff employee.