According to a recent a recent 3-0 decision from The Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court, one needn’t be Jewish to sue for anti-semitic discrimination. The suit in question was brought by a certain Myron Cowher, of German-Irish and Lutheran descent, against Carson and Roberts Site Construction and Engineering Inc., charging that he endured a year’s worth of anti-semitic slurs resulting in a hostile work environment. Reversing a previous decision, the court ruled that Cohwer’s not being Jewish was not relevant to the anti-semitism charge, as the “proper question” is not the actual identity of the plaintiff but what effects the alleged discrimination would have on “a reasonable Jew.”
From a JTA report:
Experts say the ruling will expand the scope of who can sue for discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination by allowing anyone, not just a member of the protected class, to pursue the claim. This significantly broadens the interpretation of the law, which typically has protected people based on their actual age, race, religion or sexuality.
Gregg Salka, an associate at Fisher & Phillips law firm who works with small-business clients, told The Star-Ledger newspaper that “Anyone can pretty much bring a claim, even if they’re not a member of a protected class. It moves the focus more towards the discriminatory comments rather than the actual characteristic of the plaintiff.”
April 25th, 2012 | 11:13 am
This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
April 25th, 2012 | 12:47 pm
I’m confused- is this supposed to seem silly or outrageous?
I’m a cradle Catholic and, as far as I know, of 100% Irish ancestry. But it just so happens that my Irish last name is usually ASSUMED to be Jewish. If I were insulted, abused, or denied a job by someone who thought (wrongly) that I was Jewish, shouldn’t I have some kind of legal recourse?
April 25th, 2012 | 12:49 pm
To use another example… suppose that “Bruce” is a heterosexual male with some efeminate mannerisms that lead many people to assume he’s gay. If he’s ill-treated at school or at work by people who think he’s gay, isn’t he entiled to the same kinds of legal protections that actual homosexuals receive?
If not, why not?
April 25th, 2012 | 2:09 pm
@astorian,
The post does not present the ruling as silly at all. It just reports the result. I don’t think the post’s author intended to convey an opinion on the ruling, whether it be for or against.
I agree with David. This seems reasonable. Working in a discriminatory environment can be detrimental to everyone, even if the discrimination is not directed specifically at you.
However, as a caveat, there are certainly two sides to this coin. We should consider the possible negative consequences of this ruling as well. Is there the potential for more frivolous lawsuits, for example?
April 25th, 2012 | 3:00 pm
It seems pretty reasonable to me, too. I think it’s proper that a law of this sort law should concern itself with the nature of the abusive behavior, not with the identity of the victim.
I am a little dubious about the rationale being based on what effect the abuse would have on “a reasonable X”. It seems what really ought to matter is what effect it actually had on the specific person being abused.
April 25th, 2012 | 3:43 pm
I worked one summer for a plant nursery. The family that ran it, and their employees, were all white – and their name for us laborers did much to explain why. It was a two-word phrase; the first was “nursery” and the second was another word beginning with ‘n’.
I learned quite a bit that summer – including that I never wanted to work for people like that ever again. I doubt I’d sue… but I’d have been happy to testify in a discrimination suit.
April 25th, 2012 | 7:28 pm
Federal employees are protected from this type of obnoxious language even if it not directed at them personally. It seems reasonable to me:
“Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex, race or other legally protected characteristics unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Anyone in the workplace might commit this type of harassment – a management official, co-worker, or non-employee, such as a contractor, vendor or guest. The victim can be anyone affected by the conduct, not just the individual at whom the offensive conduct is directed.”
April 26th, 2012 | 8:06 am
I haven’t really had time to think through the implications of this. I get what everyone is saying about it being pretty reasonable… I do think Ethan has a point. If think an anti-Semitic slur would sound very different to me than to someone who was actually Jewish. The person doing it is equally guilty in both cases, but the harm done is probably a lot different.
April 26th, 2012 | 6:29 pm
second was another word beginning with ‘n’.
I learned quite a bit that summer – including that I never wanted to work for people like that ever again. I doubt I’d sue… but I’d have been happy to testify in a discrimination suit.
Aren’t you the same person who argued in favor of exploiting women as “gestational carriers” as being just as legitimate a form of reproduction as any other?
I am agog at the idea that IVF children neither need nor deserve protection, and that the third world women used as “gestational carriers” neither need nor deserve protection – but it is right and proper to use the law to punish employers who call their employees names?
The weakest and most vulnerable of us are to be abandoned, but all the resources of the state must be mobilized for grown adults who voluntarily enter into a relationship that turns out to be abusive?
If a “hostile work environment” is just name-calling, and there’s no coercion or force in making people stay or anything, why can’t the adults involved simply find a new job?
April 27th, 2012 | 11:09 am
Blake –
Which of my words led you to that conclusion? It’s astonishing how rarely you actually quote me, but rather substitute your own – alleged – paraphrase. Links or it didn’t happen.
Here, for example:
Which of my words was inconsistent with this? I specifically said “I never wanted to work for people like that ever again”, did I not? And I didn’t say I was discriminated against, for example, so – as I said – “I doubt I’d sue”.
If someone else – a customer or employee, for example – were discriminated against unfairly, “I’d have been happy to testify in a discrimination suit.”
In short, Blake, at least half the time you seem to argue with what you wish I’d written, instead of my actual words.
April 27th, 2012 | 2:09 pm
And I didn’t say I was discriminated against, for example, so – as I said – “I doubt I’d sue”.
You said you’d be willing to testify.
Hence, I think I am absolutely within my rights to find something amusing in a left wing conception of the State that defends granting people the freedom to manufacture and sell human babies (using exploited, poverty-stricken women)…but should protect presumably adult citizens from being called a bad name.
April 28th, 2012 | 10:47 am
Blake –
Well, you may be within your rights… but I’ll point out that despite my invitation, you haven’t actually established that I’m for that. Can you?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact