Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Hostile Work Environment Stress Case

Saturday, September 22, 2007 | 0

By John H. Geaney

Employers can win occupational stress cases in New Jersey like the one in Williams-Edmonson v. State of New Jersey, A-5831-05T3, (App. Div. May 21, 2007).

Petitioner worked as a clerk typist and then a judicial clerk for the Monmouth County Probation Department from 1986-2000. She then left work and went out on medical leave.

Petitioner began to have problems with her co-worker Jane Loper when Loper was promoted to supervisor of the clerical staff. Petitioner alleged that after Loper's promotion, Loper started harassing her, accusing her of making personal phone calls, standing over her while she was on the telephone and interrupting phone calls.

She claimed that Loper would check on her every 15 minutes and initiated rumors that others were unhappy with the quality of petitioner's work.

She further alleged that Loper accused her of misfiling documents and not maintaining the file system correctly. She added that Loper later apologized when shown that petitioner had filed documents correctly.

The petitioner and Loper had a non-work connection. Loper's sister had a relationship with petitioner's father, and that relationship ended somewhere around the time of the promotion. Petitioner thought that Loper was reacting to the end of the relationship between her sister and Loper's father. Petitioner reported the harassment to her senior parole officer and to the union representative.

Petitioner's senior parole officer also testified in the case on behalf of the petitioner, alleging that petitioner's previous work for her had been excellent and that once Loper became petitioner's supervisor, petitioner became despondent.

Another co-worker also testified that she had experienced problems with Loper.

Petitioner visited a general practitioner, who noted that petitioner decided in 2000 to transfer to another department. The physician noted that petitioner had been in the same department for 14 years and had not received a promotion.

In October 2000 petitioner left her position permanently and got a seasonal job with the IRS in Georgia.

Dr. Dengrove testified for petitioner that she had a major depressive disorder with psychotic features. He attributed this diagnosis to a hostile working environment. Dr. Dengrove estimated a 60% disability. Dr. Holl for the State testified that petitioner suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, which pre-existed the conflict with her supervisor. He found petitioner to have a 30% disability.

The Judge of Compensation dismissed the case under the principles of Goyden and the Appellate Division affirmed. The court noted that there was a foundation in the record for the Judge's conclusion that what really bothered petitioner was that Loper was promoted over her.

The court also agreed that Loper's actions "did not rise to the level that objectively would create a stressful environment."

In essence, the court accepted the State's argument that petitioner was a jealous person who felt that she was overlooked by her employer. It latched on to one comment petitioner made, "I knew the work better than her. She did not even know the work. She was in the position and didn't even know the work."

Of equal importance, the court observed that Goyden requires that the medical condition be produced by work stress which is peculiar to the employment. "Loper's criticisms of petitioner related to petitioner's work behavior and work product; hence, this was not found to be peculiar to petitioner's work place."

The court also commented that there was no testimony that Loper raised her voice or questioned petitioner in front of others, nor used improper language. For these reasons, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the case.

John H. Geaney is an attorney at Capehart Scatchard. This column first appeared in the law firm's case law newsletter. The law firm's Web site is http://www.capehart.com.

-------------------------------

The views and opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of workcompcentral.com, its editors or management.