hostile work environment claim in New Jersey

2026Super. 133, 147 (App. Div. 1999) (alterations omitted) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)). [W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances,' which 'may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a merely offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. [Ibid. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).] To establish a hostile work environment claim, a

2026Super. 133, 147 (App. Div. 1999) (alterations omitted) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)). [W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances,' which 'may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a merely offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. [Ibid. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).] To establish a hostile work environment claim, a

2026Super. 133, 147 (App. Div. 1999) (alterations omitted) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)). [W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances,' which 'may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a merely offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. [Ibid. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).] To establish a hostile work environment claim, a

2026Super. 133, 147 (App. Div. 1999) (alterations omitted) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)). [W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances,' which 'may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a merely offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. [Ibid. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).] To establish a hostile work environment claim, a

2026Mere offhanded comments and isolated incidents are not sufficient to sustain a hostile work environment claim, unless it becomes "so severe as to pollute the work environment, rendering it irretrievably hostile." Cutler v. Dorn, 196 N.J. 419, 432 (2008) (citing Taylor v. Metzger, 152 N.J. 490, 495, 499, 502 (1998)).

2024Plaintiff also claims that a hostile work environment based on race was created when Rudy, a kitchen worker, asked her why she was "trying to be black." Under the LAD, the elements of a hostile work environment claim based on race are the "conduct (1) would not have occurred but for the employee's [race]; and [the conduct] was (2) severe or pervasive enough to make a (3) reasonable [African American] believe that (4) the conditions of employment A-3129-21 28 are altered, and the working environment is hostile or abusive." Taylor, 152 N.J. at 498 .

2026Mere offhanded comments and isolated incidents are not sufficient to sustain a hostile work environment claim, unless it becomes "so severe as to pollute the work environment, rendering it irretrievably hostile." Cutler v. Dorn, 196 N.J. 419, 432 (2008) (citing Taylor v. Metzger, 152 N.J. 490, 495, 499, 502 (1998)).

2026We apply "an objective standard to evaluate a hostile work environment claim." Rios, 247 N.J. at 12 (citing Cutler, 196 N.J. at 431 ).

2026Retaliatory acts can be a single discrete action, like discharge, or a hostile work environment claim, consisting of "many separate but relatively minor instances of behavior directed against an employee that may not be actionable individually but that combine to make up a pattern of retaliatory conduct." Green v. Jersey City Bd. of Educ., 177 N.J. 434, 448 (2003).

2008Most recently, our opinion in Green v. Jersey *432 City Board of Education elaborated on that aspect of a hostile work environment claim, explaining that such causes of actions are “different” from claims based on discrete acts of discrimination, and that hostile environment claims “are based on the cumulative effect of [the] individual acts.” 177 N.J. 434, 447 , 828 A.2d 883 (2003) (citing and quoting Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Ctr., 174 N.J. 1, 19-20 , 803 A.2d 611 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2026See Herman v. Coastal Corp., 348 N.J.

2025Herman v. Coastal Corp., 348 N.J.

2025Orange, 225 N.J. 400, 413-14 (2016) (quoting Lehmann, 132 N.J. at 603-04 ). 5 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

2025Under the severe-and-pervasive prong, the employee must prove "the harassing conduct, 'not its effect on the plaintiff or on the work environment,' was 'severe or pervasive.'" Griffin v. City of East Orange, 225 N.J. 400, 414 (2016) (quoting Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587, 606 (1993)).

2025To establish a hostile work environment claim under the LAD, an employee must prove "(1) that plaintiff is in a protected class; (2) that plaintiff was subjected to conduct that would not have occurred but for that protected status; and (3) that it was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment." Ibid.

2025To establish a hostile work environment claim pursuant to the LAD, plaintiff must prove "(1) that [she] is in a protected class; (2) that [she] was subjected to conduct that would not have occurred but for that protected status; and (3) that it was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of [her] employment." Id. at 409 .

2025"More precisely, the standard envisions a 'sense of outrageous, coercive and unconscionable requirements'" that are "more egregious conduct than that sufficient for a hostile work environment claim." Ibid. (quoting Jones, 339 N.J.

2025"More precisely, the standard envisions a 'sense of outrageous, coercive and unconscionable requirements'" that are "more egregious conduct than that sufficient for a hostile work environment claim." Ibid. (quoting Jones, 339 N.J.

2026Super. 133, 147 (App. Div. 1999) (alterations omitted) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)). [W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances,' which 'may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a merely offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. [Ibid. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).] To establish a hostile work environment claim, a

2026Super. 133, 147 (App. Div. 1999) (alterations omitted) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)). [W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances,' which 'may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a merely offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. [Ibid. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).] To establish a hostile work environment claim, a

2007As the Third Circuit has held, a hostile work environment claim will survive summary judgment: if a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to give rise to an inference of discrimination by offering proof that her workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. [ Id. at 179-80 , 887 A. 2d 1170 (citations and quotation marks omitted).] In Heitzman , the plaintiff appealed from a grant of summary judgment which dismissed both counts o

2007As the Third Circuit has held, a hostile work environment claim will survive summary judgment: if a plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to give rise to an inference of discrimination by offering proof that her workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment. [ Id. at 179-80 , 887 A. 2d 1170 (citations and quotation marks omitted).] In Heitzman , the plaintiff appealed from a grant of summary judgment which dismissed both counts o

2026Because "a discharge is a discrete discriminatory act that places an employee on notice of the existence of a cause of action and of the need to file a claim," the "statute of limitations begins to run on the day that act takes place." Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555, 569 (2010) (citing Shepherd v. Hunterdon Dev.

2019Roa, 200 N.J. at 568 (quoting Shepherd, 174 N.J. at 21 ).

2021In Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 158 N.J. 263, 272 (1999), a case brought under the LAD, the Court held that "[w]hen an individual is subject to a continual, cumulative pattern of tortious conduct, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the wrongful action ceases." In Shepherd, another LAD action, the Court highlighted the difference between a hostile work environment claim that falls within the continuing violation doctrine and a claim based on a discrete act that does not. 174 N.J. at 19-20 .

2009In a hostile work environment claim under the LAD where "an individual is subjected to a continual, cumulative pattern of tortious conduct, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the wrongful action ceases." Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 158 N.J. 263, 272-74 , 729 A. 2d 1006 (1999) (providing that the statute of limitations in a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim would not begin to run until the date of plaintiff's termination, provided plaintiff could show a "continuum of harassment" during the relevant time period).

2019Under this framework, "the factfinder's first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has proven that he or she had a disease or condition recognized as a disability under the LAD." Delvecchio v. Twp. of Bridgewater , 224 N.J. 559 , 573, 135 A.3d 954 (2016).

2019Under this framework, "the factfinder's first inquiry is whether the plaintiff has proven that he or she had a disease or condition recognized as a disability under the LAD." Delvecchio v. Twp. of Bridgewater , 224 N.J. 559 , 573, 135 A.3d 954 (2016).

2026Super. 133, 147 (App. Div. 1999) (alterations omitted) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)). [W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances,' which 'may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a merely offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. [Ibid. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).] To establish a hostile work environment claim, a

2026Super. 133, 147 (App. Div. 1999) (alterations omitted) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)). [W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances,' which 'may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a merely offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. [Ibid. (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993)).] To establish a hostile work environment claim, a

2026To establish a hostile work environment claim under the LAD, the plaintiff must show that "the complained-of conduct: (1) would not have occurred but for the employee's [protected status]; and it was (2) severe or pervasive enough to make a (3) reasonable person believe that (4) the conditions of employment are altered and the working environment is hostile or abusive." Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 17 (2017) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, 132 N.J. 587, 603-04 (1993)).

2026The statute of limitations begins to run on the day that act takes place."); O'Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 127 (3d Cir. 2006) (noting A-2852-23 15 "a bright-line distinction between discrete acts, which are individually actionable, and acts which are not individually actionable but may be aggregated to make out a hostile work environment claim.

2026The statute of limitations begins to run on the day that act takes place."); O'Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 127 (3d Cir. 2006) (noting A-2852-23 15 "a bright-line distinction between discrete acts, which are individually actionable, and acts which are not individually actionable but may be aggregated to make out a hostile work environment claim.

2025See Hayes, 231 N.J. at 386 ; D.G. ex rel.

2025That test provides that: (1) the plaintiff must come forward with sufficient evidence to constitute a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) the defendant then must show a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its decision; and (3) the plaintiff must then be given the opportunity to show that [the] defendant's stated reason was merely a pretext or discriminatory in its application. [Ibid. (citing Dixon v. Rutgers, the State Univ. of N.J., 110 N.J. 432, 442 (1988)).] A hostile work environment claim requires consideration of "the totality of the circumstances." Id. at 178.

2024Defendants assert that because plaintiffs "chose not to" raise the EFAA issue to the trial court, it did not have an opportunity to rule on the issue, and we are unable to perform our "core function of determining whether . . . the trial court made an error below." Furthermore, they posit that allowing plaintiffs to raise the EFAA argument for the first time on appeal would "improperly reward [plaintiffs] for violating procedure."4 "Generally, an appellate court will not consider issues, even constitutional ones, which were not raised below." State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364, 383 (2012). 4 Defen

2017Further, we have instructed courts "'must look beyond the label attached to [employer/employee] relationship' to determine whether an employer/employee relation exists for the purposes of bringing a hostile work environment claim." Hoag v. Brown, 397 N.J.

2017Even when the unbecoming conduct alleged has elements similar to those that might comprise a hostile work environment claim, this Court has explained that “[t]he absence of [harassment] evidence in this type of case is not critical.... [I]t is not necessary ‘for an employer to allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action.’ ” Karins, supra, 152 N.J. at 561-62 , 706 A.2d 706 (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 152 , 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1692 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708, 723 (1983)).

2017Even when the unbecoming conduct alleged has elements similar to those that might comprise a hostile work environment claim, this Court has explained that “[t]he absence of [harassment] evidence in this type of case is not critical.... [I]t is not necessary ‘for an employer to allow events to unfold to the extent that the disruption of the office and the destruction of working relationships is manifest before taking action.’ ” Karins, supra, 152 N.J. at 561-62 , 706 A.2d 706 (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 152 , 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1692 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708, 723 (1983)).