Cicchetti v. Morris County Sheriff’s Office, 194 N.J. 563 (2008).

A recent decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Cichetti addresses two distinct and important issues in the context of employment discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).  The first aspect of the decision makes clear that after-acquired evidence of employee resume fraud can only serve as a bar to economic damages if the employer can prove that it would not have hired the employee in the first place but for the resume fraud, and that after-acquired evidence of resume fraud can never serve as a bar or limitation on non-economic damages.  The second aspect of the decision clarifies that supervisors may be held personally liable for acts of discrimination only if they “actively and purposefully” assist the acts of discrimination. 

Tarr v. Bob Ciasulli’s Mack Auto Mall, Inc., 194 N.J. 212 (March 27, 2008).

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently discussed the relevant factors that may be considered by the jury in awarding punitive damages.

In Tarr, the defendant corporation had been found liable for the sexual harassment of an employee. See Tarr v. Bob Ciasulli’s Mack Auto Mall, Inc., 178 N.J. 29 (2003). The trial court, holding that general deterrence could be considered by the jury, permitted the plaintiff to argue that the jury should award punitive damages in order to “send a message to deter this particular defendant and others,” and the judge instructed the jury that it could enhance a punitive damages award in order to deter others from similar wrongdoing. On appeal to the Appellate Division, a divided panel reversed, holding that “while general deterrence remains inherent in the nature of [punitive] damages, the [Punitive Damages] Act does not permit counsel to urge the jury to increase a punitive damage award in order to enhance the general deterrence of others.”