Return to Browsing

8 N.J.A.R. 335

White, Mary v. Public Service Electric & Gas Company
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 8 N.J.A.R. 335
Decision Date: 1984
Synopsis: State of New Jersey 335 MARY WHITE, Complainant, V. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, Respondent. Initial Decision: August 7, 1984 Final Agency Decision: October 26, 1984 Approved for Publication by the Division on Civil Rights: December 6, 1984 Complainant filed a claim of unlawful-ployment discrimination on the basis of race and after a finding of probable cause by the Division on Civil Rights, the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law. The administrative law judge assigned to the case found that com- plainant, a black woman, had been an employee of respondent since 1968. During that time she held a series of secretarial positions and, despite some problems with tardiness, had been regarded as a compe- tent and capable employee. Despite this and despite a series of sugges- tions made by complainant for the improved processing of work (which were adopted by respondent) her position had changed little since her employment with the company. The judge found that several white employees, some trained by the complainant, had been promoted over her during the course of the years. The judge also found that there had been a continuing pattern of racial harassment and discrimination in the workplace in that a parti- tion had been erected to separate complainant and another black employee from white employees, that complainant had been excluded from office functions, that on at least one occasion a racially offensive remark had been made and that she had been the target of selective enforcement of time regulations. The judge also determined that if such conduct was not condoned by respondent, it did, at least, fail to take any corrective measures. Accordingly, the judge concluded that a continuing pattern of racial discrimination had been established and that complainant was entitled to compensatory damages for the difference in wages she would have received in a higher position as well as damages for pain and suffering. Upon review, this decision was modified by the Director of the Division on Civil Rights. The Director found that respondent's post-1977 treatment of complainant did constitute discriminatory re- prisals against complainant for her filing of a complaint with the Division, in that respondent continued to deny complainant promo- tions and equal pay. The Director also modified the judge's ruling that complainant be immediately appointed to the position of word processing supervisor. Noting that innocent third parties cannot be ousted from their jobs in order to redress past discrimination, the Director ordered that complainant was entitled to the next available position. Alan Wasserman, Esq., for complainant (Blaustein and Wasserman, attorneys) Roger Nelson, Esq., for respondent Initial Decision
Citation Tracker modified-Div. on Civil Rights; affirmed -App. Div., A-1496-84, 7/16/86 (unreported) [Updated through 1991]