Everyone knows employers can’t allow sexual harassment or other forms of unlawful harassment in the workplace.
However, in a recent case, a New Jersey appellate court has expanded that principle beyond the traditional employer-employee relationship.
In January, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that a sexual harassment lawsuit can be based on one company’s “discriminatory refusal to do business” with another company.
Although the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) primarily has been applied to sexual harassment claims involving employers and employees, this new decision recognizes that the LAD can also apply to a refusal to engage in business transactions if it is based upon the refusal to comply with requests for sex.
Tires, and a sex shakedown
In J.T.’s Tire Service, Inc. v. United Rental North America, Inc., the plaintiff was a private company that sells commercial and industrial tir...(register to read more)
- N.J. Supreme Court sets rules for proving religious discrimination
- Employers offering more flexibility on when work happens, less on how much
- Use multimedia campaigns to nurture employee self-service
- Make it one of HR's goals: Ensure everyone gets training on harassment
- Feel free to fire! There's no reason you have to tolerate threatening behavior