A state appeals court has overturned a judge's order requiring the Jersey City Police Department to undergo annual training on transgender discrimination as a remedy for its discriminatory treatment of a shoplifting suspect.

The Appellate Division ruled Friday that the trial judge, Martha Lynes of Hudson County Superior Court, erred by issuing the order without first allowing the parties to submit briefs on the scope of the transgender sensitivity training. Lynes initially said such briefing would be allowed, but ultimately the briefing was not permitted and no reason was given, said Appellate Division Judges Jack Sabatino, Thomas Sumners Jr. and Richard Geiger.

The panel ruled that Lynes was within her authority to order transgender anti-bias training because the plaintiff's complaint sought equitable relief. The panel also ruled that the plaintiff was within his rights to receive an award of attorney fees and costs, rejecting Jersey City's argument on appeal that he was not a prevailing party. But attorney fees for the equitable relief portion of the award should be deducted pending the outcome of the remand, the judges said.

The suit was brought by Shakeem Holmes, who claimed he was subject to anti-transgender discrimination after he was arrested and charged with shoplifting. Holmes was born with female anatomy and was named Malika Holmes, but transitioned to male. He changed his name and obtained a New Jersey driver's license with the name Shakeem Holmes.

In February 2013, after Holmes was arrested on a shoplifting charge in Jersey City, he was fingerprinted and placed in a holding cell for males. Because he was previously arrested before transitioning to male, his fingerprints were linked to records under his former name, and officers accused him of lying about his identity. He was taken from his cell and was subject to degrading remarks about his gender, anatomy and other characteristics. He was then placed in a female cell by himself, where the remarks continued until he was released.

At a jury trial in 2018, the Jersey City Police Department was found liable for discrimination in violation of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination. Holmes sought but did not get compensatory damages.

Afterward, Holmes moved for a new trial on damages, or, in the alternative, an additur, equitable relief requiring annual transgender awareness training for all Jersey City Police Department employees, and attorney fees and costs. Lynes denied the new trial and additur motion, but ordered the department to institute annual transgender sensitivity training. In a later ruling, attorney fees and costs were ordered, finding Holmes a prevailing party.

On appeal, the panel said a judge who is fashioning equitable relief "retains wide discretion in fashioning its contents and determining its breadth and scope." Review of such an award is made under an abuse of discretion standard.

The panel said it was concerned the police department and Holmes were not given a fair opportunity to brief the reasonableness and scope of court-mandated transgender sensitivity training. Citing the judge's statement that additional briefing would be accepted on the scope of training, and her failure to allow such evidence, the court said a remand was necessary. The department already does some training on transgender issues for officers but not on an annual basis, the court said.

Holmes is represented by Costello & Mains of Mount Laurel. The firm's Kevin Costello said he did not consider the court's order remanding the case for a briefing on whether sensitivity training is warranted a setback.

"We see that as an opportunity to dive more deeply into an issue which has received precious little attention in public discussion and discourse, which is the transgender experience," said Costello.

Costello said achieving an order for the police department to conduct annual transgender training would help advance the cause of transgender rights nationwide, even in the many other states whose laws give less protections to transgender persons than New Jersey.

"Every single court case that delves into a novel, unprecedented issue can always add to the conversation. Even if New Jersey law is more progressive, that doesn't mean a decision in New Jersey isn't of value in a conversation about transgender rights in Utah or Montana or Florida," Costello said.

Stevie Chambers, assistant corporation counsel for Jersey City, who represented the department, did not respond to a request for comment.