Compensation Solutions Blog
Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO – PEO – ASO – Payroll – Agency)

NJ Court Expands Definition of Sexual Harassment

The New Jersey State Superior Court has ruled that a business owner who has refused to do business with another owner because she rejected his sexual advances constitutes quid pro quo sexual harassment under New Jersey state statutes. 

In J.T.’s Tire Service, Inc. v. United Rentals of North America, Inc., 2010 N.J. Super Lexis 2 (App. Div. Jan. 6, 2010), the plaintiff alleged that a business manager at the defendant company periodically, over the course of several years, attempted to secure sexual favors from her in exchange for the right to do business.  He would withhold business and delay payments when she declined his demands. 

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to state a claim, at which time the plaintiff filed an appeal.  The defendant specifically argued that sexual harassment occurs only in an employment relationship, so that since no such relationship existed between the parties no sexual harassment could have occurred.  The appellate court rejected that argument and concluded that the defendant’s actions constituted quid pro quo harassment in violation of the discriminatory refusal to do business on the basis of sex provision in N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(l).  The lower court’s decision was reversed and remanded.