New Jersey school board on the hook for big damages in homophobic harassment case
A New Jersey Superior Court jury awarded $500,000 in damages to a student in Monroe Township, finding that the Monroe Township Board of Education had failed to respond appropriately to a student’s claim that he was subjected to unlawful homophobic harassment in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The plaintiff, whose parent sued … Read More
Mark
0
2
A New Jersey Superior Court jury awarded $500,000 in damages to a student in Monroe Township, finding that the Monroe Township Board of Education had failed to respond appropriately to a student’s claim that he was subjected to unlawful homophobic harassment in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The plaintiff, whose parent sued on his behalf, is identified as H.M. in court records.
According to a May 18 decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division that upheld the jury verdict and damage award (plus an award for attorneys’ fees and costs bringing the total judgment to $1,397, 487.60), H.M.’s complaint alleged hostile classroom environment and retaliation for complaining about it, negligence, negligent supervision, negligent training, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. H.M. also asserted claims against three students, J.H., S.H., and A.H., including assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but J.H. was the principal offender. Pretrial motions led the Middlesex County Superior Court judge to reduce the number of claims presented at trial to hostile classroom environment, gender/sexual orientation discrimination, and negligence claims asserted against the school district. The Appellate Division’s opinion provides details of the evidence presented at trial.
J.H. and H.M. attended Monroe Township schools together from 6th through 10th grades. J.H. was the principal harasser, beginning in middle school, involving physical intimidation, derogatory slurs — including being called gay and faggot — and some incidents of physical assault. H.M. complained frequently to the school’s staff, and got his mother involved in advocating for him during a parent-teacher conference. H.M.’s mother testified that H.M.’s middle school math teacher acknowledged that the school was aware of the harassment because it often occurred during class, but that the school never tried to remediate the situation.
The harassment continued in high school when J.H. and H.M. were enrolled in the same driver’s education and gym classes. J.H. threw objects at H.M., verbally abused him, and physically assaulted him. J.H. and “his friends” would bar H.M. from entering a classroom, saying “gay people aren’t allowed in the classroom.” There was a physical altercation between J.H. and H.M. in the gym locker room, which was captured on another student’s cellphone and shown to the jury. It showed J.H. punching H.M. in the face and later punching H.M. again, who subsequently fell over a bench onto the ground.
During the trial, H.M. produced an expert witness who testified about standards of care in school settings. The expert testified that deficiencies in the Board’s response were a “major breach” of professional duty. The evidence showed awareness of the school about J.H.’s misbehavior, corroborated by disciplinary infractions dating back several years, including bullying, bias incidents, and sexual harassment, but the principal testified that he was unaware of J.H.’s “disciplinary background.”
At the end of the evidence, the parties submitted their proposed questions for the jury to answer. The School Board’s proposal was a detailed battery of 7 questions, compared to a more direct 3-question proposal from H.M.’s attorney. Ultimately, the trial judge decided to boil it down to one question for the jury: “Do you find [H.M] has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Monroe Township Board of Education defendants subjected [H.M.] to discrimination and harassment while a student at the Monroe Township High School?” This question was presented to the jury together with a 53-page document charging the jury on all relevant points of law. The jury was out for 75 minutes and came back with a unanimous verdict for H.M. awarding $500,000 in compensatory damages.
The Board moved for a new trial, claiming that the jury verdict was deficient and against the weight of the evidence. The trial judge denied the motion, and entered the total judgment noted above.
The Board appealed to the Appellate Division, claiming that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Division, which specified that its decision was “Not for Publication Without the approval of the Appellate Division,” concluded that “the trial judge’s instruction was both thorough and accurate. The interrogatory presented to the jury properly encapsulated the elements of NJLAD in order to permit the jury to consider defendants’ liability. It was not so misleading, confusing, nor ambiguous that it was clearly capable of producing an unjust result to require a new trial.”
The court referred to the 53-page jury charge as answering all the questions on detail that the jury might have and noted that defense counsel “provided his own explanation on the applicable law and what it means in his closing statement with the purpose of aiding the jury in its deliberations.”
Explaining the law in its opinion, the Appellate Division recited from a New Jersey Supreme Court decision from 2007, L.W. v. Toms River Regional School Board of Education, that specified what a plaintiff has to prove to win a judgment against a school: “(1) discriminatory conduct that would not have occurred ‘but for’ the student’s protected characteristic, (2) that a reasonable student of the same age, maturity level, and protected characteristic (3) would consider sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive school environment, and (4) that the school district failed to reasonably address such conduct.” The trial judge used a standard articulated in an earlier New Jersey Supreme Court case “to hold a school district responsible for harassment if it knew or should have known about it but did not take reasonable steps to stop it.” The court’s summary of the evidence suggests that there was support in the record on all these elements.
In a footnote, the court noted that when the complaint was filed, both H.M. and J.H. were minors, but by the time of trial in May 2023, they were both adults.
H.M. is represented by R. Armen McOmber and Austin B. Tobin, of McOmber McOmber & Luber, PC, Red Bank, New Jersey.
