Aguas v. State Of New Jersey

In Ilda Aguas v. State of New Jersey,1 the New Jersey Supreme Court tackled two issues that were not "expressly decided" in Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (1993), a seminal decision interpreting the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. §§ 10:5-1 et seq. (NJLAD). Confronted with claims of sexual harassment by a corrections officer against her supervisors, the Court ruled on: (1) the effect of an employer's policy against harassment on claims for negligence, recklessness and vicarious liability; and (2) what factors make someone a "supervisor" in connection with a hostile work environment claim. In doing so, the majority of the Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, and its affirmance by the Appellate Division, and rendered a decision that should cause all employers to revisit their anti-harassment policies and supervisor structure.

Five years after she began working in the Department of Corrections in 2004, plaintiff Ilda Aguas (Aguas), a Senior Corrections Officer, claimed that she was verbally and physically sexually harassed by her supervisors on several occasions at Edna Mahan Correctional Facility (EMCF). Aguas verbally reported the incidents of harassment to different, higher ranking supervisors, including her Captain and Acting Chief. But Aguas never filed a written complaint, as required by DOC policy. Ultimately, the Department of Corrections' Equal Employment Division (EED) investigated Aguas' verbal complaints, and, after a six week investigation, advised Aguas in writing that her claims were "unsubstantiated."

Even before the results of the EED investigation were in, Aguas filed a civil lawsuit asserting claims against the State of New Jersey under the NJLAD for subjecting her to a hostile work environment and retaliating against her for reporting the harassment. In response to these claims, the State interposed affirmative defenses including its existing policy against discrimination, the "prompt and remedial action it took" and the "thorough investigation" it made into Aguas' claims. Aguas, p. 11. The trial and appellate courts held that: (1) Aguas' negligence and recklessness claims under Restatement § 219(2)(b) were properly dismissed; (2) the DOC had "exercised due care" in its investigation of the claims; (3) the State prevailed on the affirmative defense that it had implemented anti-harassment policies; (4) Aguas' supervisor did not use his position to control her daily work...