Full text
GREENE v. LANCE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DYNAJAH GREENE et ail., Plana, Civil Action No. 21-14399 (MAS) (LHG) v. MEMORANDUM OPINION WELIAM LANCE et ai., Defendants.
SHIPP, District Judge This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Chief of Police Robert Stettner (“Stettner”) and Town of Phillipsburg’s (“Phillipsburg,” and together with Stettner, “Defendants”’) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiffs Dynajah Greene (“Greene”) and Carrie Stepney (“Stepney,” and together with Greene, “Plaintiffs”) opposed (ECF No. 10), and Defendants replied (ECF No. 11). The Court has carefully considered the parties’ submissions and decides the matter without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are two residents of Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege that William Lance (“Lance”), who at the time was a police officer employed by Phillipsburg, sexually harassed them while in uniform. (Compl. J] 10-18, ECF No. 1.) According to Greene, on multiple occasions, Lance winked, blew kisses, and even contacted her via cell phone. (/d. {[ 12.) Lance’s actions did not stop there, however. In August 2019, Greene was outside a Wawa convenience
stoirnPe h illiwphseLbnau nrpcgle a hceehrda nodnh ipse nainssd a i"dD,yo o lui wkhea yto u fee(lI?<J[d 1".0 S.t)e pnaelyl'esga artreie omnarssk iambilIlynea arrM.la yr 2c0h2 S0t,e pwnaesy atth sea mWea wwah eLna n"cteo uhcehbreu dt taonctdkh sle inf hteuerpad n kdi shseewrdi" t hout
hecro ns(eIn<J[d 1t.6. . ) Feudpw iLtahn cbee'hsa viopro,s oGtnrFe edabe coneoe ak b ohueetrx periences with (I <J[d 1.3 S.e)v eortahwleo rm erne pltiote hpdeo sdte,t atihleoiiwnrnig n terwaictthi oLnas nce. (ITdh.pe)o csatu tghhaett teonftt hiWeoa nr rCeonu nty Prose(ctu"htPeor ro'sse cOuffitcoer ' Offic(eI"<J[d) 1..4 T.h)Pe r osecOufftiotcrhe'ec sno ntaGcrteeewdnh eop rovaindi endt erview witthhC eo unDteyt ecStpievceVisia clt Uinmi'(tsI. dU .l)t imatthPeerl oys,e cOuffitcoer 's crimicnhaalrLlgayen dwc iets he xmuiaslc oanndrdue cltoa ffteend(s Ieds..) OnJ ul3y02 ,0 2P1l,a instuieLffdas n acneDd e fend(aSnegtees n.e riadPl.ll)ay i ntiffs broubgoh4tt2hU .S§.1 C9.8a 3ns dt altacewl aiamlsl,ec goiunfngot( rs1h )a rasasnmades nsta ult anbda ttaegrayiL nasnt(c 2es),u perlviiasbaoigrla iiStntyse tt( t3nc)eo rn,s paigraaiScntyse tt tner
anLda n(c4ea),M oneclllaa igma iPnhsitl li(p5ss)eb xumuriagsl,c onsdeuxacustas,la suelxtu,a l battneergyl,ia gnedn ti ntiennfltiiocoften imaoolnt idoinsatclrl easaisgm asi Lnasntac ne(d,6 a) sexual haanrdag sesnmddeeinrst c rimcilnaauitnmid otenhr Ne e wJ ersLeaywA gainst Discrim(i"nNaJtLiA(oDCn"o )m.<J[<J[p l1.9 -5D3e.f)e ndnaonwbt rsit nhgie n stmaonttit oon dismtihcsels a aigmasi nst them.
II.LEGALSTANDARD
"FedReurloaefCl i vPirlo ce8d(uar)re(e 2q)uo inrl'eysas h oarnptdl asitna teomfte hnet clasihmo wtihntaght pe l eaidesen rt ittorl eeldii neo fr,dt'eo' r g itvhdeee fenfdanaionrtt oi fc e whatth. e. c.la iiasmn tdh ger ouunpdowsnh iicrthe stBseA.lt"lCl' o. r vp.T.w omb5l5Uy0., S . 5445,5( 52 007) C(oqnulvoe.Gty ii bnsg3o 5nU5,. S4.14 ,7( 195O7n)a m) o.t itoodn i smfiosrs failtuosr teaa tc el atihm"e,d efebnedaatrnhsbte u rdoefsn h owtihnnagot c lahiambs e en preseHnetdegvde..Us "n iSttead4t 0eF4s. ,37 d4 47,5( 03 Cdi 2r0.0 5). A distcroiuccrottn duat chtrse ea-npaalwryhtse icnso nsidaem roitnitgood n i smiss
purstuoFa endte RrualolefC ivPirlo ce1d2u(rbeS) e(Me6a )l.lv e.Gu eso r6g4eF1,. 35d6 05,6 3 (3Cdi 2r0.1 F1i)r.ts hcteo, u mruts" t' tanko[toeef] e tlheem aep nltasi mnutspitlff e taosd t aat e claiImd(..q" u'o AtsihncgvrI .oq fbt5a 5lU6,. 6S6.62 7,(52 00S9e)c)ot.nh cdeo, u mruts" tr eview[] thceo mpltaosi tnrtci oknec laulsloergya ItdTi.ho ceno su.mr"ut sa tc caesptt r auleol ft he plainwteilffl'-spf laecaatdlueladel g aant"dic oonnsts htcreou mep lianti hlneit gm hotsf ta vorable tot hpel ainFtoiwfflv.e.U"r P MSCh ady5s7iF8d. e32,d0 32,1( 03 Cdi 2r0.0 (9c)i toamtiitotne d). Ind oisnogh, o wevtehcreo, u irsfrt e teo i gnloergeca oln cluosrfi aocntsuu naslulpyp orted accusatthmiaetor nessl tya" tteh e-defendant-unIlqabw5af5luU6,l. lSay.t6- 7h8a rmed- (ciTtwionmgb5 l5Uy0., Sa 5.t5 5). tFhiceno aumlrultsdy te, t erwmhient"eht efhrae ca tlsl eigne d thceo mplaarsieun ffitc iteosn htot wh tahtpe l aihnatas'i pffl aucsliafbiolrmree liFeofw.l'e"r ,
57F8. 3adt2 1(1q uoItqibn5ag5l U6,. Sa.t6 79A) f.a cipallaluycs liab"ilamel ltohcweos u trot dratwhr ee asonablteh taihtdne ef feerniedlsnai cnaeftb o tlrhem e i sconducItd a.at2 l1 l0e ged." (quoItqibn5ag5lU 6,. Sa.6t 78).
IIID.ISCUSSION
A. Plain§t i1ffS9su8'p3 e rvisor LiabainMldoi nteyCll,l aCiFomansis lp.iracy Plaibnrtiitnffhagsic st uinodn4e 2Ur . S§.1 C9.8 T3os. t aact lea fiormre luined§fe1 r983, ap laimnutsaitlff l fiergsett,hv, ei oloaftar i iognsh etc ubryte hdCe o nstiotrlu atwoisfto hne UniStteadat nesdse, c otnhtdah,tae l ledgeepdr iwvaacsto imomnio trct aeudbs yeap d e rascotni ng undceorlo ofsr t altaeSw e.We e svtA. t ki4n8Us7., S4 .24 ,8( 19(8c8i)Pt airnrgva T.t aty l4o5r1, U.S5.27 5,3( 51 98T1h)Ce)o .ua rdtd reesascoehfPs l ainctliaffiisntm' us r n. 1. PlainFtaitiffolPs l ausAilblleyg e foCrSl uapiemrsLv iiasboairnl dity ConspiArgaaciyn st Stettner. DefenadragntuthesPa lta instuipffesrl'vi iasbaoinrlcd io tnys pcilraauicnmyds §e 1 r9 83 musbted ismiRsesgeadrt.dh icenl gaf iomsru perlviiasboDirel fietnyad,ra gntuthesPa lta intiffs fatiopl l ausailblfleaygc ett hsSa tte tktnneeawrb oourpt a rticiinLp aantcweerd'o sn gdoing. (DeMfosv.i'Bn r5g.E, C FN o9.- 1L.i)k ewDiesfee,na dragntuthePsa l ta ianltlineffofgs ae ct thsa t Stetptanretri icnai npcyao tnesdp wiirtLahac ny(c Iead.6t. 7- .) Addretshsseiu npge rlviiasbocirll aiPitlmya, i nctainffnrsoe stl oyl oenla yr espondeat supetrhieooorflr iya baiglaiiatdn yes fetn dfao§nr1 t 9 8l3i abSielAeil teyx.av n.Gd eenrn arini,
14F4A. p p9'2x94 2,(5 3 Cdi 2r0.0 I5n)s.t Pelaadi,mn utsiatffl slte hgaase tu perhvaipdse orrs onal involvientm haeeln ltew greodnS gesRe.o dveD. e llac8i4pF5r. e21td1e 91,52 ,0( 73C di 1r9.8 8) ("dAe fenidnaac nitvr iilga hcttsmi uosnht a vpee rsionnvaoll vientm heaenl tl ewgreodn gs; liabcialnibnteopy tr ediscoaltoeentld hyo e p eraoftr ieosnp osnudpeeartTi hoTerh "i)Cr.id r cuit recogsnuipzeerslv iiasbowirhl eiarts eyu per"vpiasrotri icnvi ipoaltapetldai inngrt iigffh'tss , direoctthetedvor i so tlhaetomera, ,st hpee rsioncnh [asr]hg akedn, o wloefad ngadec quiiens ced [thseuibro]r dviinoaltaetSsia'on ntvis.a.W g"ao r minTswtp6e.2r,F9 . 31d2 11,2n 7. (53 Cdi r. 201(0q)u.o At.iMen.xgr eJl..M .vK.L. u zeCrnnet Jyu.v eDneitCl.te r3 .7F,2. 35d7 25,8( 63 d Cir.2004)). HerPel,a ifnattiioplff l sa usailblalenygfy ea ctthsSa tte tptanretri ciinop rda itreedc ted
Lantcoes exuhaalrltayhs esNm o.rd oetshC eo mplainta nhyii nntcthl Sauttde et htande r knowloefdo grae c quiteosL caendcc eo'nsd (uScetge.e nerCaolmlpyIl n.t )hC eo mplaint, Plainatsisffteshr aSttt et"twnaeasrw aorfet hneu meraocutassn dc omploafis netxsu al harassamgeaniLtna"sn t(c IeCJ[d. 2. 5 T.h)e bsaear lel eghaotwieoavnresner,o e, tn outgosh u stain ac laoifsmu perlviiasb"oibrle icttayhu aesryene om orteh caonn cluIsqibo5an5lUs6,.. aS"6.t 7 9. e.g., how or when he was made aware. Accordingly, this Court must disregard the Complaint’s “naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” and “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action.” /d. at 678. Plaintiffs’ separate claim for conspiracy under § 1983 against Stettner is likewise deficient.’ “To make out a § 1983 conspiracy claim, the plaintiff must make specific factual allegations of a combination, agreement, or understanding among all or between any of the defendants to plot, plan, or conspire to carry out the alleged chain of events in order to deprive plaintiff of a federally protected night.” Fioriglio v. City of Atlantic City, 996 FP. Supp. 379, 385 (D.N.J. 1998) (emphasis added). Regarding the conspiracy claim, the Complaint is devoid of any facts plausibly alleging a conspiracy between Stettner and Lance. For illustration, Plaintiffs do not allege when the agreement to conspire occurred, or any other details to show that Stettner and Lance acted in concert to harass Plaintiffs. Taking the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Complaint does not plausibly allege a § 1983 supervisor liability or conspiracy claim. Those claims, accordingly, are dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs Fail to Plausibly Allege a Claim for Municipal Liability Against Phillipsburg. The Court next addresses Plaintiffs’ Monell claim against Phillipsburg. Plaintiffs assert two separate theories for municipal liability: (1) Phillipsburg has a custom, policy, and/or practice of failing to investigate complaints of harassment and unwanted sexual contact, and (2) Phillipsburg failed to properly train, supervise, and discipline its officers regarding appropriate procedures for protecting constitutional rights. (Compl. 35-39.) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim must be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that Phillipsburg has established a custom
' This claim is also pled against Lance, but he is not a moving party in this Motion.
off aitlofi unlgil nyv eshtairgaastasenm uden nwta nsteexcduo anlto artc rtai itpnso loifcfiec ers. (DeMfosv.i'Bn r8g.- 11.) InM onevlN.le wY orCkiD tye partomfSe oncStie arlv tihcSeeu sp,r Ceomuehr ettl hdaa t
municioproa tlhlieotrcyg a olv ernmmaeybn est u bjteolc ita buinld§ie 1tr9y 8 433.U6 . S6.5 8, 691-(9129 7B8e)c.al uoscea l go"vaerrreens mpeonontnsslfoi ryb' lteho ewiinrl laecgtatslh, e"y' cannboeht e lvdi cariouusnld§ye 1r9l 8if3ao btrlh eeei mrp loyaecetsiS'oe nCeso .n nvi.c k Thomp5s6oU3n. ,S5 .16 ,0( 20(1q1u)o Pteimnbgav u.C ri nci4n7nU5a. tS4i.6, 94 ,7 9 (1986)) (emphianos riisg Tihnuatsloe,) s .t ambulniischli ipaabulin ld§ie 1tr9y8 a3p ,l aimnutsitff prove th"aatc tpiuornst uooa fnfitcm iuanli cpioplailc y"h iicsna juMusorenyde.4 l 3lU6,. Sa.t6 91I.n addiatp iloani,mn utsitff a allltsehogta eht pe o loircc uys twoamts h "ep roxciamuaostfehe" i s injuErsiteoasRft. oe m avn.C iotyNf e wa9r1kF4,. 37d8 97,9( 83 Cdi r. (2c0i1Kt9ni)en igp p v. Tedd9e5rF ,. 31d1 9192,1 (33 Cdi r. 1S9p9e6c)i)fiP.cl aalilnmytu,is dfftes m onsatnr ate '"affirlmianbtkei'tv wete hepeno loircc yu staonmtd h pea rticcounlsatri vtiuotlihaoetn iaoln
alleIgde(.sc .iB"ti ienlgve D.vu ibciz9n 1oF5n. ,28 d48 55,(1 3 Cdi 1r9.9 0A)tt) hp.el easdtiangge , thgiesn erraelqlusyio rmefesa ctthsta etn tdos hotwh paotl icywmearkaeew raosrf se i milar unlacwofunld iuntc hptea sbtuf,ta itlote adpk ree caaugtaiifonunstsvtu i roel aatnitdoh tnahsti, s failaultre eai,snp ta rltet,dot hien juirnqi ueess Steiieod( n.c. i Btiienlge9 v1Fi5.c 2az8dt,5 0.) Ina ddit"i[own],ht ehpero el i'ccyo ncaef ranislt uotr reao irsn u permvuinsiec ipal emplso',yl eieabuinldsieetrcy t1 i9o8rn3e quais rheoswt ihntaghtf e a ialmuoruetn o't dse liberate indiffetrtoeh rneic geoh'fpt esr swoinwtshh o tmh oesmep lowyiecleolsm i en ctoon tTahcotm.a"s vC.umberCltya.7n,4Fd 9. 231d27 2,(23 Cdi 2r0.1 (4q)u oCtairnvtgC.e i roty Pf h ilad1e8l1phia, F.333d39 5,(73 d 1C9i9r9'.)" )[.D ]eilnidbieffreairatsse e tn rciesn'tg aennodtffa arurdle tq,u iring
protohfaam tu nicaicptdaoilrs reagk anrodowernod b vicoounss eqoufhe ianscc tei Coonn.n"i ck, 56U3. aS6t 1 ( BoaorfCd o mmo'Bfrry sa Cnty v.B. r ow5n2U,0. S3.9 471,(01 997)). RegarPdlianign fitrismfftu' nsi cliipaablti hleiottrhyCye o, m plaailnlte'gsoa fta i ons municpioplaiplcr ya,co trci ucset,ao rmaet b, e scto,n clu(sSoecreoy m.p( l_[3.(6 _[- 3H9e.rt)eh ,e Complaalilnettgh weahste Gnr eepnoeso tneF dab coeo rke garLdainnchgea 'rsa smsumletnitp,l e womecno mmeonntt ehpdeo asltl eginign csiid(meIi(ndl1_[t.a3 sr.B. )u t th easlel egmaatkieo ns
nom entoifao nnpy o liccuys,ta onmd /or bpyPr haicltliitcphessa butug rgtgehm seut n icipality condoLnaendcb ee'hsa vIinfao crtt.,h C eo mplmaaiknentso m entoifot nhme u nicipality' knowloefLd agnec bee'hsa bveifooGrrre e eFnaec'esb pooosIktn .d ePelda,i rnetaidffaisdl myi t thaaftt Gerre emnaedt eh peo ssthw,ea cso ntabcytt hePedr osecOuftfioacrne'Ld sa nwcaes crimicnhaalrlgyes de xwmuiiatslhc oanndodut choteff re n(sIe(_[ds1 ..5 .) Nodro etshC eo mplparionvatin fdyae c ttoss u staMa oinnec lllafo irfm a itlotu rraaein nd superFvaittsaotel h. ci lsa Pilma,i dnotn iopfftls a uaslilbtelhgyPae ht i lliwpadsseb luirbge rately indiffteocr leaniotmfs s e xhuaarla ssTmheTenh tiC.ri dr chuahiset lt dh attofi, n dm unicipal liabpillaiimtnuyts,sit hff ob wo ktnho wloeftd higene c iodrke nnotw loefadp gaet otfie nrcni dents,
ancdi rcumssutcathnht caheties n action caom memsusonaifagc peap treoSdveM aeol n.t gomery vD.eS imo1n5eF9,. 31d2 01,2( 73 Cdi 1r9.9 (8c)i Btoinnegn bePrlgyemroT uovtw.hn s1h3i2p, F.32d02 ,5( 3Cdi r.1A9tb9 e7s)tth)C,e.o mplaalilneatpg aetsto efsr inm bielahrab vyLi aonrc e, butth Ceo mplcaoinnttna odi entsta opi llasu aslilbtelhgyPae ht i llihpaasdnb kyun rogw ledge of Lancper'icsoo rn duct. PMloaridenootn vioeefftvrs ea, nl ltehgPaeht i llifpasitbloauec rdtg once GreeFnaec'esb pooobsket c apmueb Fliotcrh. er seea stohnCeso ,udr its miPslsaeisnM toinffesl'l claim. B. PlainPtliaffuss Ailblleyag Cel aiUmn detrh eN JLADf orP ublic AccommodDaitsicorni mAignaaitPnihsoitnl lipsburg. FinaDlelfeyn,d aarngttushe Pa lta inctliaffuisnm'd t ehrNe J LAmDu sbted ismissed becatuhCseoe m plfaaitinloats l lLeagneec iet ahcetwrei dt thhisenc oopfhe i esm ployamsae nt Plaintiffs. (Defs.” Moving Br. 12-15.) Plaintiff’s NJLAD claim references Defendants generally. But the claim completely omits any factual allegations against Stettner. (Compl. 42-53.) The Court thus finds that the Complaint does not state a claim against Stettner for a NJLAD violation. (Defs.’ Moving Br. 12-15.) The NJLAD provides, in relevant part, “[a]ll persons shall have the opportunity to... obtain all... advantages . . . of any place of public accommodation . . . without discrimination . .
. because of ... sex.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-4 . Courts readily affirm that the NJLAD evidences a broad remedial goal and, therefore, the statute is to be construed liberally. Vandegrift v. Bowen, No. 07-2623, 2009 WL 1913412 , at *4 (D.N.J. June 30, 2009). To state a claim under the public accommodation theory of the NJLAD, a plaintiff must allege, “(1) defendant operates a place of public accommodation, (2) the plaintiff is a member of a protected class, and (3) he or she was denied equal treatment on the basis of his or her membership in a protected class.” Vergara v. Keyes, No. 20-1460, 2020 WL 7778080 , at *4 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2020) (quoting Vandeusen v. Mabel Realty of Bordentown, LLC, No. 12-0330, 2012 WL 1664116 , at *3 (D.N.J. May 11, 2012)). While the NJLAD does not specifically list sexual harassment as its own form of discrimination, “it is well-established that ‘[s]exual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates’” the NJLAD.” J.T.’s Tire Serv., Inc. v. United Rentals N. A., Inc., 985 A.2d 211, 215 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010) (quoting Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587, 601 (1993)). In addition, “the discriminatory acts of law enforcement officers are considered public accommodation discrimination under the NJLAD.” Vandegrift, 2009 WL 1913412 , at *3 (citing Ptaszynski v. Uwaname, 853 A.2d 288 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)).?
2 See also Florentino v. City of Newark, No. 19-21055, 2020 WL 5105291 , at *13 (D.N.J. ‘Aug. 31, 2020) (“A ‘police department—both the building and the individual officers—is a place of public accommodation.’”)
The Court finds that this claim is plausibly pled against Phillipsburg. Importantly, claims under the NJLAD alleging sexual misconduct by officers with citizen victims are not unprecedented and courts have declined to dismiss claims against municipalities under a direct liability theory. See id. at *5 (declining to dismiss NJLAD claim that municipality “discriminated against women by failing to implement policies and procedures within its police department relating to sexual harassment of women”). In Vandergrift, plaintiff alleged that she was sexually harassed by one of the municipal defendant’s police officers during and after a traffic stop. /d. at *1. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit, alleging several claims, including an NJLAD claim. □□□ That court found that the allegations sufficiently pled that the police officer’s conduct would not have occurred but for her gender and was severe or pervasive enough to make a reasonable woman believe that the conditions are altered and the environment is hostile or abusive. See id. (quoting Lehmann, 626 A.2d at 453-54 (alterations in original). Applying these principles here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs adequately plead a claim for public accommodation discrimination under the NJLAD at this stage. Plaintiffs plead that Lance harassed them because of their sex. (Compl. {§[ 47-49.) They also plausibly allege that Lance treated other women in the same manner and that Phillipsburg failed to either deter or prevent Lance’s harassment of multiple women. Ud. JJ 10, 13, 16, 48.) Moreover, it is readily apparent on the face of the Complaint that a reasonable woman would believe that she was subjected toa hostile or abusive environment. Importantly, Plaintiffs do also allege that Lance engaged in a
To avoid confusion, claims under the NJLAD are not subject to the deliberate indifference standard that Monell claims are subject to. Vandegrift, 2009 WL 1913412 , at *4 (D.N.J. June 30, 2009) (finding that the New Jersey Supreme Court “unambiguously rejected” the deliberate indifference standard’s application to NJLAD public accommodation claims by adopting the Lehmann test.); See also Colombo v. The Bd. of Educ. for the Clifton Sch. Dist., No. 11-785, 2016 WL 6471013 , at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2016) (dismissing Plaintiff’s Monell claim but allowing NJLAD public accommodation claim to proceed to summary judgment).
pattoefbr enh awviitPohlr a ianntodit ffhwseo rm eCnfN. .W. vG.r eaEtgeHgra rbRoerlg 'H igh ScDhi.s 2t0.1W,8L 6 332a2*t44 7( ,N .SJu.pC etrA..p pD.i Dve.c 5.2, 01(8")Wd ee cltiorne ea d [NJLAaDsi] m possitnrogirv c itc arliioaubosin al nie tmyp lofyoaers r i nignlcei odfae nn t
unauthcoormimzbeeynid tte sm plo.y.weh.ee trheei rnseo a ctourca oln strnuoctttihictavehte e emplohyaeesxe h idbiistcerdi mcionnadituntoc hrpteya st."). Eveunn daet rh eoofrv yi carliioaubtsih lCeio tuydr,et c ltiodn iessm aitts hssi tsa ge. Defendraenhlteysa vointl hyTe h iCridr cdueicti'issnYi uocnvi S.se aOrust SlteotrL eLsCt,,o argPulea inNtJiLffAc'Dls a sihmo bueld di smi(sDseefMdso..v 'iB nr1g.2 -E1C5FN, o 9.- 1I.n) Yuctihspe,l aisnuteSideff au rnsdt ehNreJ LAD, alalS eegamiransng a mgtaehdiraen t a ppropriat commetnoht edsru rhienvrgi stiott hd ee parsttmoe8rn1etF3. .A pp7'8x07 ,8( 23 Cdi 2r0.2 0). Seahrosw,e mvoevret,dod ismuinsdtseh rte h etohrtayht pe l aihnatndio pfftl efda cttoas l lege vicalriiaobufoisrtl himeta yn aghearr'ass sImdTe.hn deti .s tcroiuacrgttr aenedddi smitshsee d plainctliaIffid'Om.sn.a ppetahTleh, iC ridr acffiurimtfie ndd,it nhigaNn tJ LAcDa sreesq uesting
monetraerlyit ehfae,g enpcryi ncsiepotlu etis n R estat§e2 m1e9an ptp tloyp ublic accommodhaatriaoscnsasms eSenestie. d a .t7 84T.h Ree statiemmpeovnsitec sa rliioaubsi lity onliayfn oyft hfoel lowfiivtneeg sa trssea tisfied: (1 )theem plowyaes'e a ctiintn hsgec oopf[e h iesm]p loyment;' (2t)heem plo'yienrtt ehncedo enddo urtc hcteo nsequ(e3tn)hc ees;' emplo'yweanrse gliogrre enctk l(e4ts)hs ee;m 'p lo'yceoen'dsu ct violaa ntoend- deldeugtoayfbt lh[eee mplooyr(e 5rt])h; e' emplo'ypeuer ptooar cttte doso pre oanbk e hoaftl hf[e e mployer] antdh ewraers e liance uapuotnh ooarrhpi ewpt aayasr,i e dnietnd accomptlhi[seih lialncegbtg yt]a h lee x isotfte hn[ece em ployment] relation. Ida.t7 85(cRietsitnagt§ e§2m 1e9n((t12 )),( a()a-l(tde)ir)noa rtiigoinDnsea fle)n)ad.sa snetrst thtahtpe r esmeantittfs ea rc tsuiamlitlloYya u rca instd h Ciosu srhto duilsdm (iDsesfM.so .v'i ng Br1.4 T.h)iC so udrits agrees. While in Yucis the Third Circuit found that none of the Restatement tests were satisfied, that is not presently the case before this Court. See Yucis, 813 F. App’x at 784-87. Specifically, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Lance acted with apparent authority or was at least aided in his conduct by being a police officer. (Compl. 10, 15.) In Yucis, the Third Circuit noted that “for an employee to be aided by his employment in committing a wrongful act, he must have taken advantage of some special mechanism afforded to him by his employment. . . [o]r the employment must have provided the employee a position of special authority making the victim particularly vulnerable to the wrongful act.” Yucis, 813 F. App’x at 786. Here, the Court finds that Lance was in a position of special authority that made Plaintiffs particularly vulnerable to his sexual harassment. This is because Lance was a police officer and in uniform when he sexually harassed Plaintiffs. Yucis, in fact, cites to a case bearing remarkably similar circumstances. /d. (citing Doe v. Forrest for the proposition that “sheriff’s deputy was aided by his employment in coercing a civilian into a sexual act because the deputy’s position gave him ‘unique access to a citizen who is depending upon the law enforcement officer for protection’); see also Doe v. Forrest, 853 A.2d 48, 61 (Vt. 2004) (collecting cases alleging vicarious liability in sexual assault claims involving officers). Keeping in mind the remedial purpose of the NJLAD, and its liberal application, the Court finds it prudent to address this claim on summary judgment.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ Motion. It will issue an order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE