Plaintiff, who was employed for fourteen months by defendant as a part-time receptionist, alleged that she was subjected to repeated acts of sexual harassment by several male employees. Plaintiff also alleged that her employment was terminated in part as retaliation for reporting this sexual harassment to management.
In N.C. v. Caldwell, 77 So. 3d 561 (Ala. 2011), the Supreme Court of Alabama addressed whether a physical education teacher was entitled to State-agent immunity after a student under his supervision was sexually assaulted by another student. N.C., a minor, alleged that her teacher, P.R.
The plaintiff worked as an administrative assistant for the defendant, whose office was located at the home of the company’s president. The plaintiff worked in the same room as the president and he supervised the plaintiff’s work. The president asked her uncomfortable personal questions about her marriage and financially distressed situation, stating that she had options available to make money, but that he needed to speak to her in private about them. He followed this by offering to give the plaintiff money in exchange for sex.
Nava has been a police office since 1993. In 2000, according to Nava, Gallegos, one of Nava’s supervisors, harassed her almost daily. Gallegos checked on her location more than other officers, raised his voice to her, denied her many of the same privileges male officers were afforded, followed her to her house to monitor how long she took on bathroom breaks, assigned rape calls to her even when other officers were closer to the scene of the crime, and threw a file folder at her on one occasion.
Here, plaintiffs Henrietta Nearing and her two children appealed the order of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed a grant of summary judgment to respondents city and police officers for failure to follow the mandatory arrest provisions of Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.310(3) for violation of a domestic protective order. Plaintiff Henrietta Nearing was separated from her husband and received a restraining order against him after he was arrested and charged with assault for entering her home without permission and striking her.
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), codified at N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-1 et seq., establishes a broad anti-discrimination framework across employment, housing, public accommodations, and other public settings.
Under New Jersey Public Law 2017, Chapter 176, discrimination in health insurance coverage and public employee benefit plans on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, or transgender status is prohibited.
Section 10:5-4 of New Jersey Revised Statutes states that all individuals have the right to obtain employment, to access public accommodations, secure housing accomodations, and to engage in other real property transactions without discrimination. The statute prohibits unequal treatment on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital or familial status, affectional or sexual orientation, sex, gender identity or expression, disability, liability for military service, nationality, or lawful source of income.
New Jersey Revised Statutes § 10:7-2 affirms that every individual in the state has a fundamental right to make personal decisions about their reproductive health. This includes the right to use or decline contraception, to continue a pregnancy and give birth, or to terminate a pregnancy. The statute guarantees that these choices belong to the individual, and not to the government, and it protects access to both contraception and abortion services as part of that right.
N.J. Rev. Stat. § 17:23A-13.3 prohibits insurers and their agents from releasing personal or privileged information about a person’s status as a victim of domestic violence or about an employer of a victim of domestic violence, except under specific conditions. Disclosure is allowed only with the individual’s written consent, by court order, or when necessary for limited operational purposes such as claim processing or compliance with legal requirements.
