Close this search box.

NJ Supreme Court Decision In Case Of Anti Semitism Against NJ Jewish Police Officer

court hammer.jpgWorkers taunted about their religion or ancestry are entitled to the same legal protection as the victims of abuse, race and ethnic harassment, the New Jersey Supreme Court said in the case of a police officer whose colleagues called him a “dirty Jew.”

The unanimous court on July 31 reinstated a verdict against the Haddonfield Police Department and a number of its officers and patrolmen for directing anti-Semitic taunts, harassment and slurs at Patrolman Jason Cutler.

A Camden County jury awarded no damages because it found no basis for Cutler’s claim that anti-Semitism delayed his promotion to corporal. And, in a ruling that prompted amicus briefs from Jewish groups and the plaintiff’s employment bar, an appeals court said the behavior amounted to locker-room antics, “ribbing” and “breaking of chops” and wasn’t actionable.

The state Supreme Court agreed there were no monetary damages, but it reinstated the harassment finding, adding to its stack of pro-plaintiff rulings in workplace discrimination cases.

The court found that Cutler, a borough officer since 1995, was either directly targeted by anti-Semitic remarks from his fellow officers and, on occasion, his superiors, or that remarks were made about Jews in general while he was present.

Remarks over a five-year period included, “Let’s get rid of the dirty Jews,” “Jews make all the money” and “Jews are good with money.”

Haddonfield solo Mario Iavicoli argued for the borough that Cutler was an active participant in the rough-house atmosphere of the police station and had gone along with the behavior for years. He noted that the department maintained a “humor file” containing ethnic jokes and that Cutler had contributed to it. Thus, he argued, there was no hostile work environment.

In determining whether harassment based on religion, ancestry or sex creates a hostile work environment, finders of fact should apply the “reasonable person” standard, and here, the jury made the correct decision, the judge said. The record shows that anti-Semitic comments were either directed at Cutler personally or were made about Jews in general when he was around. The conduct was purposeful and ongoing.

“Those statements were not accidental in parlance. They were aimed to have an effect on their listener, and their listener was known to the speakers as a person of Jewish faith and ancestry. The uttering of those repeated comments clearly constituted a form of harassment for the person whose ancestry and religion was being demeaned and insulted.”

When fellow officers and superiors say things like, “Let’s get rid of all those dirty Jews,” the effect was to take Cutler back to “one of the lowest times in mankind’s history, the Holocaust,” she said.

The court warned that it would likely reject arguments in future cases that attempt to wave away inappropriate behavior as just part of the general culture of a particular workplace.

“Time and time again, such inappropriate workplace ‘cultures’ have given rise to liability for a hostile workplace,” she said. “In sum, the comments demonstrated an anti-Semitic bigotry that has no place in a workplace of this state.”

New Jersey leaders of The Anti-Defamation League called the decision a “critical step forward in protecting Jewish workers in New Jersey” and said it “reaffirms the commitment of the New Jersey Supreme Court to ensuring that anti-Semitism has no home in the New Jersey workplace.”

(YWN Desk – NYC / New Jersey Law Journal)

2 Responses

  1. hmmm.. I don’t get it…if there were no monetary penalties what happened as a result of the trial? Did he get his promotion?

Leave a Reply

Popular Posts