In Dupray v. NY Loft, LLC and Ana Sternberg, Civil Action No. 25-229, 2025 WL 2393375 (D.N.J. August 18, 2025), the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim asserted under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD).
From the decision:
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s NJLAD hostile work environment claim. “Claims raised under the NJLAD are analyzed under the same framework applicable to Title VII cases.” Waiters v. Aviles, 418 F. App’x 68, 72 (3d Cir. 2011). To succeed on a hostile work environment claim under the NJLAD, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) she suffered intentional discrimination because of her sex; (2) the discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability.” Williams v. Inspira Health Network, No. 22-007, 2023 WL 7151222, at *6 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2023) (citing Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 2013)); and
Defendants challenge only the second prong: that the discrimination was severe or pervasive. See ECF No. 4 at 4. They argue that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient because “a one-time display of a ‘sexually graphic photograph’ in the workplace” is insufficient to establish “severe or pervasive” discrimination. Id. at 5. Only in “a rare and extreme case” will “a single incident” be “so severe that it would … make the working environment hostile.” Thompson v. S. Amboy Comprehensive Treatment Ctr., No. 18-9923, 2021 WL 3828833, at *5 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2021) (quoting Lehmann v. Toys R Us, Inc., 626 A.2d 445, 455 (N.J. 1993)). But Defendants displayed a pornographic photograph in the workplace every day for “at least six weeks,” not just on one single day. FAC ¶ 12. Plaintiff’s exposure to the photograph appears to have been a daily occurrence. “The court must consider cumulative effect, keeping in mind ‘that each successive episode has its predecessors, that the impact of the separate incidents may accumulate, and that the work environment created may exceed the sum of the individual episodes.’ ” Ivan v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 595 F. Supp. 2d 425, 452 (D.N.J. 2009) (quoting Lehmann, 626 A.2d at 455).
In addition to the daily, compounding occurrences of the alleged harassment, Plaintiff notes that the photograph was displayed by one of the co-owners, who held a position of power over Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 8. “When an act is done by a supervisor its severity may be exacerbated because the supervisor has a unique role in shaping the work environment.” Ivan, 595 F. Supp. 2d at 452 (citing Taylor v. Metzger, 706 A.2d 685, 690 (N.J. 1998)); see also Hargrave v. Cnty. of Atl., 262 F. Supp. 2d 393, 416 (D.N.J. 2003) (finding that the “severity of [defendant’s] conduct was aggravated by the fact that he was a member of the management staff”); Leonard v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 723 A.2d 1007, 1011 (N.J. App. Div. 1999) (“[T]he severity of the remarks was underscored by the fact that they were uttered by plaintiff’s supervisor.”). These allegations, taken together, sufficiently allege a hostile work environment at the pleading stage.
This finding is particularly appropriate given that courts are hesitant to dismiss hostile work environment claims based only on a failure to allege severity or pervasiveness. See Booker v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 880 F. Supp. 2d 575, 582 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (“Courts in this Circuit have … ‘shown a reluctance to dismiss a complaint at the 12(b)(6) stage when the primary challenge to the hostile work environment claim is whether or not the conduct in question is severe and/or pervasive.’ ”); Ingram v. Vanguard Grp, Inc., No. 14-3674, 2015 WL 4394274 at *19 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2015) (“[D]etermining whether harassing conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive is a highly fact-intensive inquiry …. [S]ummary judgment provides a more appropriate vehicle to resolve [this issue], as the parties at that stage have had an opportunity to conduct discovery and develop their claims.”). Additionally, the New Jersey Supreme Court has advised that the NJLAD “should be liberally construed.” Nini v. Mercer Cnty. Cmty. Coll., 995 A.2d 1094, 1100 (N.J. 2010).
Based on this, the court held that dismissal of plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, at the pleading stage, was not warranted.