What constitutes “reasonable care” with regard to implementing an antiharassment policy? Can an employer immunize itself from all liability? Is it enough to institute a policy and provide employee training? What constitutes a “safe haven” or “safe harbor”? These questions have been raised in employment cases over the years.
While the courts are not always consistent in their interpretation of the seminal New Jersey cases in the area, their decisions provide some answers to these questions. (Though it is important to note that many of these decisions are unpublished, and therefore, under N.J. Court Rule 1:36-3, do not have precedential value.) It is clear that the courts scrutinize the preventive procedures, the remediation and the employee’s action in availing herself (or not) of those practices.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
