Judges and attorneys frequently tout New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) as one of the most protective anti-discrimination laws in the nation. While that is undoubtedly true, the LAD's liability scheme appears to contain a gaping loophole that enables "sole harassers" to avoid liability.

Imagine this rather un-imaginary scenario. Karen Smith is employed by the Acme Company as a bookkeeper. Hugh Creeper is the office manager at the Acme Company and supervises Karen. Over the course of a few months, Hugh makes several sexual comments to Karen and even goes so far as to inappropriately touch her at the office. Karen tells Hugh to stop but to no avail. The conduct continues and eventually Karen decides to resign as a result. Karen finds a great employment litigator who sues the Acme Company for hostile work environment sexual harassment under the LAD and sues Hugh for the same sexual harassment claims, plus aiding and abetting liability. It's a slam dunk case for individual liability against Hugh, right? Wrong.