Repeated and Unwelcome Behavior Does Not Amount to Sexual Harassment
December 19, 2008
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently held in Godfrey v. Princeton Theological Seminary, 952 A.2d 1034 (N.J. 2008) that the seemingly lecherous behavior of 70-year-old William Miller towards two divinity students did not constitute sexual harassment.
This case involved two women who were enrolled at the Princeton Theological Seminary (“Seminary”) and alleged they were sexually harassed by Miller, an alumnus and long-time resident in the Seminary public housing. As a result, they filed a lawsuit against the Seminary, alleging sexual harassment in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Title IX.
At the close of the plaintiffs’ cases in chief, the trial court granted the Seminary’s motion for involuntary dismissal of all claims. The decision was then affirmed by a majority of the Appellate Division. As a result of a dissent in the Appellate Division, the case was reviewed and affirmed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Plaintiff Beth Godfrey, a 25-year-old divinity student, alleged that she initially met Miller when he introduced himself to her in the fall of 2000 at the campus center, which housed the Seminary’s dining facility and where many Seminary events, both public and private, were held. Godfrey alleged that her next contact with Miller occurred as she was standing in a dessert line during a Christmas dinner at the campus center. Specifically, Godfrey claimed Miller stood behind her in line, placed his hand on her shoulder, and proceeded to ask her out. Godfrey reported that Miller also sent her a Christmas package containing Winnie the Pooh note cards and a note detailing his personal life. Eventually, Miller began calling and leaving telephone messages for Godfrey, which she did not return. When the telephone messages became more frequent and aggressive, Godrey reported the incident to Seminary administrators.
Plaintiff Jennifer Kile asserted similar allegations. Kile alleged that while she was working in the Seminary library, Miller would visit her and on one occasion approached her and requested the telephone numbers of two other female Seminary students. Kile refused to provide them. Kile also reported that Miller sent her a package, asked her out, and emailed her asking to visit her while she studied abroad in England.
Both plaintiffs complained to the Seminary administration and requested action be taken to compel Miller to cease making advances to the women. The Seminary responded by sending Miller a letter stating that he was prohibited from entering the campus center any longer except to attend public events. Believing Miller had violated the restrictions placed on him by the administration, the plaintiffs lodged a “formal complaint” and sought to have Miller banned from campus. Concluding that the Seminary’s sexual harassment policy would not apply since Miller was a public tenant and not a member of the Seminary community, the administration advised the plaintiffs to seek help from local law enforcement.
Dissatisfied with the Seminary’s response, the plaintiffs continued in their quest for help by contacting others within the Seminary, including members of the President’s Executive Council. In response, the head of the council, President Thomas Gillespie, informed the plaintiffs that the council was not authorized to handle those types of complaints and also cautioned the plaintiffs that their complaints about Miller could expose them to a lawsuit for libel. Dissatisfied, the plaintiffs filed suit.
Annoying and Bothersome Conduct
In granting involuntary dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims, the trial court relied upon Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us in holding that plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence that Miller’s conduct was “severe or pervasive” enough to establish a hostile environment sex discrimination claim. 132 N.J. 587 (1993). The Court noted that none of Miller’s actions involved any sexual language, inappropriate sexual comments, or suggestions. Instead, the Court concluded that Miller’s actions constituted nothing more than “annoying and bothersome conduct.”
In affirming the decision, the appellate majority found Miller’s behavior to simply be one of the “socially uncomfortable situations that many women encounter in the course of their lives....” The Supreme Court agreed and Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, writing for the unanimous Court, held that “[a]lthough socially inapt and, no doubt, annoying, Miller’s conduct did not approach sexual harassment. Persons who are socially tone deaf are not, by that characteristic, necessarily the equivalent of sexual harassers.”
The Supreme Court also found it compelling that neither woman ever told Miller to “go away.” In that regard, the court held that the plaintiffs could not “rely on the prospect of a money damages award from the Seminary to replace their own obligation simply to tell Miller that they had no interest in him romantically or even as a casual acquaintance.” Although this case provides encouragement to schools facing a number of unfounded lawsuits, schools should be reminded that once complaints of such a nature are received, action should be immediately taken to avoid liability or, at the very least, unwanted litigation.
For more information, contact:
Kelly L. DeGance
904.798.5412
kelly.deglance@hklaw.com
toll free: 1.888.688.8500
Related Practices