Coalition Filed Amicus Brief in the Matter
Trenton, New Jersey - The Sikh Coalition welcomes yesterday's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court holding that anti-Semitic workplace comments such as "dirty Jew" violates New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination.
In February 2007, an appeals court held in Cutler v. Dorn that such slurs and other harassment like posting German and Israeli flags on the Jewish worker's locker simply amount to lawful "teasing" and "pranks." Yesterday's Supreme Court decision reverses that holding.
The Sikh Coalition, filed an filed an amicus brief in September with the New Jersey Supreme Court arguing that if the appeals court decision was allowed to stand "then Sikh employees subjected to severe or pervasive name calling such as 'terrorist' and 'Bin Laden,' and other offensive conduct will no longer benefit from the protections afforded by New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination."
In 2003, police officer Jason Cutler sued an officer of the Haddonfield Police Department, the Township of Haddonfield, and its public safety director. Cutler said he was subjected to the following conduct
-
the phrase "dirty Jews" was used in his presence;
-
a Israeli flag sticker was placed on his locker and 2 weeks later a German flag sticker was placed above it;
-
a supervisor asked him several times about his "big Jew nose";
-
he was "jokingly" told that he would not be permitted to wear a yarmulke on Passover; and
-
other officers told him "Jews are good with numbers" and "Jews make all the money."
A jury ruled in February 2003 that Cutler did in fact face a hostile environment on the job, "based on his religion or ancestry." On February 3, 2007, however, a three-judge appeals panel overturned the verdict. The appeals court held that "epithets or comments which are 'merely offensive' will not establish a hostile work environment claim."
Coalition Critique, Supreme Court Clarification
The Coalition's amicus brief critiqued the appeals court for viewing Cutler's ordeal as "merely offensive" because the "[court's] analysis appears to originate from the perspective of the officers… not the victim of the conduct." Accordingly the brief asked how such conduct, given the history of genocide and stereotypes suffered by Jews, could be viewed as anything but hostile workplace discrimination.
Yesterday's decision clarified that "the inquiry is whether a reasonable person of plaintiff's religion or ancestry [emphasis added] would consider the workplace acts and comments made to, or in the presence of, plaintiff to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile working environment." The Court rejected the notion that the harassing co-worker's intent to simply "joke" around had any relevance to the inquiry into whether an unlawfully harassing environment existed from the perspective of the victim.
The Supreme Court also made clear that the legal burden for proving that a religiously hostile workplace is is equal to, not greater, than the burden for proving a sexually or racially hostile workplace environment. The Court stated that: "In our view, it is necessary that our courts recognize that the religion-based harassing conduct that took place for Cutler in this 'workplace culture' is as offensive as other forms of discriminatory, harassing conduct outlawed in this state."
The Coalition whole-heartedly welcomes yesterday's decision. Sikh workers, and workers of all faiths, now have strong protection from discriminatory harassment in the workplace.
The Coalition would like to thank Ravinder Singh (Bhalla), pro-bono counsel for the Sikh Coalition, for drafting and filing its Amicus Brief in this matter and bringing this matter to the Coalition's attention.
The Coalition calls on all Sikhs to stand up for their civil rights and fearlessly maintain their articles of faith.
