Aguas v. State of New Jersey: Workplace Harassment and Employer Liability
Case Background
The plaintiff, Ilda Aguas, has been a New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) corrections officer since 2004. While working for the DOC, Aguas suffered several incidents of sexual harassment by her supervisor, Lieutenant Darryl McClish. According to the plaintiff, McClish repeatedly showed physical and verbal harassment toward a subordinate.
In addition, similar actions towards Aguas were manifested by other supervisors, Sergeant Robin Hill and Sergeant Eric Sands. In its application, the plaintiff cites negligence and vicarious liability claims premised on the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Aguas sued the State of New Jersey for vicarious liability because it is McClish’s employer. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the State, and the suit was dismissed. Therefore, Aguas filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, confirming the validity of the earlier decision.
Issues
Two main issues need to be resolved in the case. First, the court needed to establish “the impact of an employer’s anti-harassment policy on an employee’s negligence or recklessness claim under Restatement § 219(2)(b)” (Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494, 2015). According to the LAD, organizations have an official policy that prohibits any form of workplace harassment.
In addition, all managers and employees should receive training on workplace harassment prevention. The policy encourages the timely filing of sexual harassment complaints by workers who have experienced it (Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494, 2015). Thus, another question concerning this claim is whether the rulings established by the LAD were applied in the DOC where the plaintiff worked.
Second, the court needed to establish the extent of liability on the State as the employer of the harassers. This issue includes determining whether McClish, Hill, and Sands, accused of harassment against Aguas, were its executives. In addition, it is necessary to establish whether their actions contributed to the creation of a hostile atmosphere in the workplace.
According to the DOC, the employer’s job is to create “a work environment free from any form of discrimination/harassment” (Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494, 2015). Since the supervisor at the workplace is the official representative of the employer, these same responsibilities are shifted to them. As a result of the breach of these obligations, managers may be subject to sanctions, including dismissal.
Decisions
The Trial Court and Supreme Court of New Jersey found McClish, Hill, and Sands’ actions illegal and violated the law against gender discrimination. Their actions against Aguas were identified as physical and verbal sexual harassment, which created a hostile work environment. However, in Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494 (2015), the decision was in favor of the State of New Jersey.
The court found that the State was not responsible for the harassment against the plaintiff because the New Jersey Department of Corrections promotes anti-harassment policies in the workplace. Consequently, the trial court denied Aguas’ application, and the Appellate Division upheld this decision.
Reasoning
This decision of the court has several factors underlying its justification. First, the fact that the New Jersey Department of Corrections is promoting Law Against Discrimination was considered. The court ruled that Aguas succumbed to a common type of gender-based sexual harassment that created a hostile workplace environment.
However, he concluded that “the State had established an affirmative defense” (Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494, 2015). The DOC where the plaintiff worked had an Equal Employment Division (EED) that handled sexual harassment complaints in the workplace. However, Aguas deliberately refused to attend harassment prevention and counter-training (Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494, 2015).
Moreover, she did not take advantage of the opportunity to file an allegation of misconduct by her superiors promptly. According to the plaintiff, she repeatedly reported wrongdoing by supervisor Lieutenant Rudolph Walz, who advised her to refrain from filing a written complaint (Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494, 2015). Fearing retaliation from his superiors, Aguas did not take the steps required by the harassment prevention policy.
In addition, according to the majority opinion, McClish, Hill, and Sands were not the leaders of Aguas. According to the definition used in the case, a supervisor is a person who is “authorized to undertake tangible employment decisions affecting the employee” (Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494, 2015). That includes decisions regarding hiring and firing, distribution of work responsibilities, and compensation decisions. McClish, Hill, and Sands did not have this authority and were therefore not considered the plaintiff’s management by definition. Therefore, the State of New Jersey is not their employer and should not be vicariously liable for this claim.
Separate Opinions
However, in this case, several opinions differed from the majority’s. For example, the National Employment Lawyers Association of New Jersey (NELA) stated that the Appellate Division’s definition of supervisor focused on McClish’s job responsibilities rather than his actual ability to influence Aguas’ day-to-day operations. As the plaintiff’s handler, McClish had sufficient authority to influence the performance of her job duties.
For example, according to the plaintiff, “hyper-scrutiny” was applied to her, accompanied by comments of a sexual nature (Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494, 2015). Furthermore, state law does not require employees to file sexual harassment complaints in writing. Aguas has repeatedly verbally reported to management and EED about misconduct by its supervisors. However, this opinion was in the minority and failed to counter the statements made by the Appellate Division.
Analysis
Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494 (2015) has significantly impacted subsequent cases of discrimination and harassment in the workplace. First, employers should have a clear gender-based misconduct prevention policy for their employees. This policy should clearly define harassment and a procedure for filing complaints about such behavior. In addition, the implementation of this policy should be monitored, and its effectiveness should be regularly assessed, with appropriate adjustments made.
Second, employees should make it mandatory to file harassment complaints to help prevent it. If the employee does not file a complaint on time in the form established by the organization’s policy, the employer may be exempted from liability. In addition, the employer and senior management must respond to any allegations of workplace harassment and take appropriate action.
A Caution Note
The case has several caveats that need to be considered and analyzed. Although the New Jersey Department of Corrections has promoted the LAD policy, it is clear that this law has not been fully implemented. The case does not provide evidence of whether the policy was enforced and if the necessary training was provided by management. In addition, it is unknown whether McClish, Hill, and Sands were aware that their actions were discriminatory and the possible consequences.
Another critical factor is Walz’s inaction, which the plaintiff addressed with complaints about the supervisors. Consequently, the DOC did not take sufficient measures to prevent discrimination and harassment. In addition, the judgment in Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494 (2015) denied previous rulings in Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc., 255 N.J. Super. 616, 661 (App. Div. 1992), Cavuoti v. New Jersey Transit Corp. 161 N.J. 107, 113, 120–21 (1999), and Gaines v. Bellino, 173 N.J. 301, 312–14 (2002).
Work Cited
Supreme Court of New Jersey. Aguas v. State. 220 NJ. 494. 2015.