## Facts

- Carrie Taylor, an African American Burlington County sheriff’s officer employed since 1972, attended firearms training at the county police academy.
- In a work-related setting, Sheriff Henry W. Metzger, Taylor’s supervisor, saw Taylor, turned to the undersheriff, and said, “There’s the jungle bunny,” and the undersheriff laughed.
- Taylor was the only African American and the only woman in the classroom; she became upset, cried, and reported the comment to co-workers, some of whom laughed or responded dismissively.
- Taylor sought internal redress and demanded a written apology; Metzger asserted he used the phrase in the Marine Corps with a “different connotation,” claimed he did not know it was derogatory, and challenged Taylor’s interpretation.
- Metzger later offered written apologies acknowledging he used the phrase; Taylor rejected them, including one that described her as wearing camouflage fatigues, which she disputed.
- The incident became public through media reports.
- Taylor remained employed without loss of pay, but alleged workplace ostracism and serious emotional and physical effects, including fear, insomnia, nightmares, mood changes, hair loss, and clinical diagnoses progressing from adjustment disorder to post-traumatic stress disorder.

## Issues

1. Whether a single severe racial epithet spoken by a supervisor to a subordinate, in context, can constitute a hostile work environment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).
2. Whether the same conduct and resulting harm can support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed summary judgment for the sheriff on the LAD hostile work environment claim.
- The Court held a reasonable jury could find that a single, highly offensive racial slur by a supervisor was sufficiently severe to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile work environment under the LAD.
- The Court also reversed dismissal of the IIED claim, holding the record could permit a jury to find extreme and outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the LAD hostile environment and IIED claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under the LAD, discriminatory harassment is actionable if it is “severe or pervasive”; a single incident can suffice if it is sufficiently severe in context.
- Hostile environment severity is assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, including consideration of the plaintiff’s protected status and workplace context.
- A supervisor’s use of a racial epithet toward a subordinate in a workplace setting may carry heightened coercive and humiliating force because of the power imbalance and the authority the speaker represents.
- IIED may be submitted to a jury when evidence could support findings that the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous and that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, including clinically documented psychological injury.
- On summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and deny relief if a rational factfinder could resolve material disputes in that party’s favor.

## Conclusion

A single supervisor-directed racial slur, when severe and made in a workplace context marked by authority and public humiliation, can support a LAD hostile work environment claim, and the same event may also support IIED when the plaintiff presents evidence of extreme conduct and severe emotional harm.


Taylor v. Metzger, 706 A.2d 685 (N.J. 1998)