Sexual Harassment is a very hot topic; just take a look at the front page of your newspaper. Because this area of the law is developing, and because more and more people are determined to change the hostile nature of their work environment, it is extremely important that employers take the necessary steps to effectuate a legitimate sexual harassment policy in their office. Sexual harassment has been the most dominant workplace issue in the United States in recent years. Puff & Cockerill LLC has lawyers to help you with this very sensitive area of the law. For employers, an ounce of protection, i.e. a legitimate sexual harassment policy, will save you literally tens of thousands of dollars in lawsuit expenses. Contact us for our immediate assistance.

In the event a sexual harassment complaint is made, effective remedial measures must be taken immediately to eliminate the sexual harassment and to do the best you can to ensure that it does not happen again.

New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (which includes a cause of action for sexual harassment and a hostile work environment) allows a successful litigant to receive attorney?s fees. This is a large consideration in these cases, because the attorneys? fees can easily run up to $40,000 or $50,000. Depending on the facts in your case, it may be smart to settle early, or it may be prudent to await your day in court.

Noted below are some of the more severe and pervasive cases which involve sexual harassment. These are clear cases of sexual harassment and are provided to give you some idea of what sexual harassment is.

1. Unwanted sexual solicitations and sexual horseplay. See, e.g., Spencer v. General Electric Co., 894 F.2d 651, 659 (4th Dir. 1990)
2. Kissing, fondling, and rubbing against plaintiff, and other sexually suggestive conduct. See, e.g., Priest v. Rotary, 634 F.Supp. 571 (N.D. Cal. 1986).
3. Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 880 (9th Cir. 1991) ("even a ?well-intentioned compliment? can form the basis of a sexual harassment cause of action").
4. Canada v. Boyd Group, Inc., 809 F.Supp. 771, 776 n.1 (D. Nev. 1992) (conduct may be sexual in nature even if supervisor never touched plaintiff on her "personal parts").
5. McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (blocking plaintiff?s egress from her office by forcefully twisting her arm is conduct "because of sex" in that supervisor would not have treated a man in the same manner).
6. Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc., 915 F.2d 777, 783 (1st Cir. 1990) (plaintiff testified she rejected supervisor?s sexual advances).
7. Trautwetter v. Quick, 916 F.2d 1140, 1149 (7th Cir. 1990) (finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate unwelcome conduct in that plaintiff initially rejected the advances but later "grew to welcome [them] and even participated in an active way").
8. Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 898 (1st Cir. 1988) (consistent failure to respond to suggestive comments or gestures may be sufficient to communicate that the conduct is unwelcome).
9. EEOC v. Domino?s Pizza, Inc., 69 FEP Cases 570, 573-74 (D.C. M. Fla. 1995) (finding unwelcome conduct based on fact that plaintiff protested harassment, explicitly told supervisor not to touch him, and asked other employees to be present in store when supervisor was present to avoid unwanted contact).
10. Bryson v. Chicato State University, No. 95-3435 (7th Cir. 9/19/96) (tenured professor who alleged that she was stripped of a job title and removed from University committee for refusing sexual advances of University provost alleged facts sufficient to state quid pro quo harassment claim).

The information set forth above constitutes general answers to certain questions pertaining to New Jersey Law and is not intended or designed to replace the advice of an attorney after a careful review of the individual facts of your case. Please read our site wide legal disclosure.