Taylor v. Metzger

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Torts

TortsEmployment discriminationHostile work environmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressLADracial harassmenthostile work environmentsingle incident

Facts

Plaintiff, an African American sheriff's officer, encountered defendant sheriff and an undersheriff at a police academy, and the sheriff said to the undersheriff, "There's the jungle bunny," after plaintiff greeted them. Plaintiff was deeply upset, later confronted defendant, and claimed he badgered her for taking the remark as racial and offered an apology she found insincere. She alleged that coworkers laughed when told of the incident, later treated her coolly, and labeled her a troublemaker. Plaintiff also presented psychiatric evidence that she suffered anxiety-related symptoms and was diagnosed by Dr. Fox with post-traumatic stress disorder directly caused by the incident.

Issue

Can a single racial epithet uttered by a supervisor to or about a subordinate be sufficiently severe to create a hostile work environment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination? Can the same conduct, together with plaintiff's proof of resulting harm, survive summary judgment on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and may plaintiff also maintain a prima facie tort claim?

Rule

Under the LAD, workplace harassment is actionable if it would not have occurred but for the employee's protected status and is severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable person in the plaintiff's protected class believe that the conditions of employment have been altered and the working environment is hostile or abusive; a single incident may suffice if it is sufficiently severe. For intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff must show intentional or reckless, extreme and outrageous conduct, proximate cause, and distress so severe that no reasonable person similarly situated could be expected to endure it; when the claim arises from racial harassment, the objective inquiry is whether the average African American would suffer severe emotional distress under the circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a county public works office in Newark, supervisor Dana Mercer introduced employee Malcolm Reed to two management trainees by saying, "Here comes our office monkey," and laughed. Reed, who is Black, kept his salary and title but later sought counseling and says the remark made him feel degraded at work.

On Reed's hostile work environment claim under the LAD, which is the best analysis at summary judgment?

Explanation. The majority held that the LAD uses a severe-or-pervasive test, not a repetitive-conduct requirement. A single incident can be actionable in the rare case where it is sufficiently severe. Severity is assessed from the perspective of a reasonable member of the protected class, and a tangible job loss is not required because the harassment itself may alter conditions of employment. An intent-to-distress element belongs to IIED, not the LAD claim. (Derived from Taylor v. Metzger (n.d.).)