Words may create hostile environment liability
A recent case from the Appellate Division provides a cautionary illustration that words spoken to a prisoner in a police station may create liability under New Jersey’ s Law Against Discrimination( LAD). In Holmes v. Jersey City Police Department, the Appellate Division reversed a trial court decision which dismissed a complaint against the Jersey City Police Department. In the case, the plaintiff alleged that law enforcement officers created a hostile environment by making demeaning, insulting and threatening comments about his transgender status. The plaintiff asserted that these comments violated the LAD, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
The facts are as follows: The plaintiff was a female-to-male transgender person who was arrested for shoplifting and taken to the police station. While there, he alleged that officers made comments to him that he claimed created a hostile environment. Specifically, he alleged that several officers referred to him as“ it,” referred to his situation as“ bull---t,” and stated“ so that’ s a f---ing girl.” In addition, he alleged that an officer threatened to put his fist down the plaintiff’ s throat“ like a f---ing man.” These statements were all made on a single day and were not part of ongoing conduct.
The plaintiff sued the police department, alleging violations of the LAD. The city filed a summary judgment motion in which a court is required to consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, or the plaintiff in this case. Essentially, the court was required to accept plaintiff’ s allegations as true for purposes of the motion. The trial court concluded that the officers’ alleged comments did not violate the LAD and granted the police department’ s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.
The Appellate Division noted that there was no dispute that a police station is a place of“ public accommodation” under the LAD. The issue, therefore, was whether plaintiff’ s allegations, if true, could support a hostile environment discrimination claim under the LAD. In concluding that the officers’ comments could support such a claim, the court found it significant that the officers were in a position of authority over the plaintiff, which magnified the impact of the alleged harassing and threatening conduct, even though it only occurred on one day. While the court recognized that a certain amount of“ strong language” may be expected in a police station, even the city did not argue that law enforcement officers have any operational need to threaten, demean and harass a prisoner based on his protected status, in this case his transgender status. One concern the court expressed was that the officers’ alleged conduct might encourage other prisoners to attack the plaintiff, and thereby undermine the orderly operation of the police lock-up and the safety of the transgender prisoner.
It is important to point out that the court did not conclude
12 new jersey cops ■ JULY 2017