Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s lead in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the appellate court in New Jersey has ruled that plaintiffs suing for wage discrimination in New Jersey cannot rely on the “continuous trigger” theory, by which each paycheck restarts the running of the statute of limitations.

Godfrey v. Princeton Theological Seminary, 196 N.J. 178 (2008)

In Godfrey v. Princeton Theological Seminary, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that repeated, unwelcome and “socially inapt” conduct by a person who is “socially tone deaf” does not necessarily amount to sexual harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (the “LAD”). A person has, at minimum, an obligation to simply tell an unwelcome pursuer that they are not romantically interested in him (or her). “To allow the LAD to replace such basic human interaction trivializes the purpose for which the LAD was established.”

Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. May 30, 2008).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that the protections afforded to pregnant women under Title VII of the  Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., as modified by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), also extend to women who have an abortion.

Salamon v. Our Lady of Victory Hosp., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2064 (2nd Cir. Jan. 16, 2008).

The right to control how a particular assignment is accomplished is a critical element to establishing whether an individual is an independent contractor, or an employee entitled to bring a claim for workplace discrimination. In Salamon, the Second Circuit addressed this issue in the context of claims for sexual harassment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the New York Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”).

Iyer v. Everson, et al., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18512 (3d Cir., August 3, 2007).

Where employment discrimination plaintiffs are unable to provide direct evidence of discrimination, the employer has the burden of overcoming the accusations of discrimination it would not otherwise have.  In Iyer the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit employed the well-established burden-shifting analysis under McDonnell Douglas v. Green (“McDonnell Douglas”), where the plaintiff could present nothing more than circumstantial evidence of illegal discrimination.

Ledbetter v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., 2007 U.S. Lexis 6295  (May 29, 2007).

Even if the effects of an allegedly unlawful practice persist long afterward, a Title VII plaintiff must file an EEOC claim within 180 days of the practice itself. In Ledbetter, the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the plaintiff, who had argued that the effects of discriminatory decisions pertaining to her salary had continued with each paycheck she was issued, had filed her claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission too late to prevail on her Title VII lawsuit. The majority held that Congress intended that this short period would encourage the swift resolution of such disputes.

Godfrey v. Princeton Theological Seminary, No. A-1957-05T2 (App. Div. Mar. 15, 2007).

An alumnus’s unwanted but non-sexual advances to two female students do not, by themselves, establish a sexual harassment claim under New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). In Godfrey, a divided panel of the Superior Court of New Jersey - Appellate Division ruled that the alumnus’s communications with the students, which were not accompanied by sexual comments, innuendos, or references to their bodies, were not severe or pervasive enough for a reasonable woman to find the environment hostile. However, the dissenting judge contended that, given the totality of the circumstances, insistent unsolicited contacts could be severe enough to cause a reasonable woman to believe that she is in a hostile environment. 

Godfrey is the first case since the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, where the Court held that the LAD also applies to a sexual harassment case in an educational context, to address the issue of what constitutes sexual harassment in an educational setting.  However, as the split opinion in Godfrey indicated, the New Jersey judiciary needs a more concrete standard as to the extent that the LAD can apply to sexual harassment cases in a school environment.  If the plaintiffs exercise their right to appeal from this split decision, the Supreme Court will have another opportunity to clarify how far the LAD is meant to reach.