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)
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Critical evaluation isn't an adverse employment action
- Categorize reasons why you impose employee discipline
- Train managers to build resilient teams that can respond to change
- Applicant has solid work history? That's a legitimate reason for promotion