that the officers, in fact, made the statements alleged by plaintiff. In
reversing the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division conclud-
ed that:
the inquiry is whether plaintiff ’s allegations, if true, could
support a hostile environment claim under the LAD. We
find that they could, and that plaintiff is therefore entitled
to present his claim to a jury. In reaching that conclusion,
we consider that plaintiff, as an arrestee temporarily incar-
cerated in the police station, was in a uniquely vulnerable
position; that the individuals making the hostile comments
were police officers, who wield tremendous power over ar-
restees; and that the comments included a physical threat.
Under all the circumstances, a jury could find that the con-
duct was sufficiently severe that a reasonable transgender
person in plaintiff ’s position would find the environment to
be hostile, threatening and demeaning.
The court therefore remanded the case for trial. At trial, it would
be plaintiff’s burden to prove that the statements were, in fact,
made.
In sum, the takeaway from this case is that words do matter,
particularly in an environment where law enforcement officers ex-
ercise authority over individuals in their custody. It is also import-
ant to recognize that the case does not just apply to transgender
persons, but to anyone who, under the LAD, is a member of a pro-
tected class, such as race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. The court
recognized that strong language is to be expected in a police sta-
tion and was not intending to interfere with what goes on. However,
demeaning or harassing language which is directed at a prisoner’s
protected status under the law may go too far. The court drew a dis-
tinction, based on the LAD, between strong language and language
that is harassing, demeaning and threatening. While the line may
not always be easy to draw, the court seemed to have no trouble in
finding that the language at issue in this case, if true, crossed that
line.d
www.njcopsmagazine.com
■ JULY 2017 13