In Stouch v. Department of Child Protection and Permanency et al, 2025 WL 1338221 (N.J.Super.A.D., 2025), the court, inter alia, reversed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of sexual harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
From the decision:
A hostile work environment claim requires consideration of “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at 178. To establish a hostile work environment claim under the LAD, moreover, a plaintiff “must show that ‘the complained-of conduct (1) would not have occurred but for the employee’s protected status, and was (2) severe or pervasive enough to make a (3) reasonable person believe that (4) the conditions of employment have been altered and that the working environment is hostile or abusive.’ ” Griffin v. City of E. Orange, 225 N.J. 400, 413-14 (2016) (quoting Lehmann, 132 N.J. at 603-04).
Given the deposition testimony and the EEO investigative report, the record established that a rational factfinder could conclude that plaintiff was the victim of severe and pervasive sexual harassment in the workplace in the form of unwelcome sexual touching and comments over the span of months from a male DCPP employee, Palumbo. See Lehmann, 132 N.J. at 603. We are also satisfied the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, would permit a rational factfinder to conclude that CFS was liable for the manner in which it addressed plaintiff’s sexual harassment complaint. More specifically, one could find CFS liable for how it decided to transfer plaintiff, allegedly without her assent, rather than investigate plaintiff’s complaints and work collaboratively with DCPP to address the misconduct committed by DCPP’s employee. Although it is true that CFS did not have the authority to discipline or transfer Palumbo, we believe a rational jury could conclude that it could have worked with DCPP and asked it to exercise its authority over Palumbo in an effort to address her sexual harassment complaint against Palumbo.
While the court “offer[ed] no opinion on the substantive merits of plaintiff’s claims against her employer” it held “that there are fact-sensitive issues concerning CFS’s liability under the LAD that are not appropriate for summary judgment and must instead be decided by a jury.”