620, 626 A.2d 445; (2) when the employer negligently manages the workplace by failing to enact anti-harassment policies and mechanisms, id. 600-01, 626 A.2d 445 (quoting Grigoletti v. Ortho Pharm. 603-04, 626 A.2d 445 (enumerating standard for actionable hostile work atmosphere sexual harassment). 132 N.J. at 592, 626 A.2d 445. Moreover, in Lehmann, this Court established that underneath the LAD an employer will likely be liable for compensatory damages for a hostile work atmosphere in three circumstances: (1) when the employer grants a supervisor authority to manage the office and the supervisor abuses that authority to create a hostile environment, id. Super. 333, 345, 853 A.2d 288 (App.Div.), certif. Corp., 118 N.J. 89, 107, 570 A.2d 903 (1990)). We reject the Title IX deliberate indifference customary as a result of we conclude that the Lehmann customary ought to apply within the office and in the varsity setting. See DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. See N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13 to -18 (enacting procedures to curb acts “reasonably perceived as being motivated both by precise or perceived characteristic, resembling … sexual orientation”). See N.J.S.A. 10:5-4. Second, Title IX prohibits only recipients of federal educational funds from discriminating against college students primarily based on intercourse. First, Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex solely.
Because the LAD prohibits discrimination in locations of public accommodation as nicely because the workplace, see N.J.S.A. 2d at 851-52. Conversely, the LAD, as does our State Constitution, enforces the guarantee of civil rights, see N.J.S.A. Although this Court may look to federal jurisprudence for guidance when interpreting the LAD, we is not going to hesitate to depart “from federal precedent if a inflexible utility of its standards is inappropriate below the circumstances.” Lehmann, supra, 132 N.J. 10:5-4, L.W. argues that the Director and the Appellate Division appropriately utilized an ordinary similar to the hostile work atmosphere sexual harassment commonplace of liability enumerated in Lehmann, supra, 132 N.J. See Lehmann, supra, 132 N.J. Due to the Act’s plain language, its broad remedial objective, and the prevalent nature of peer sexual harassment, we conclude that the LAD permits a cause of motion against a school district for scholar-on-student harassment based on a person’s perceived sexual orientation if the school district’s failure to reasonably deal with that harassment has the effect of denying to that pupil any of a college’s “lodging, advantages, facilities or privileges.” See N.J.S.A.
See Gebser v. Lago Vista Ind. By recognizing a trigger of action against faculty districts for failing to moderately handle peer-based mostly, affectional orientation harassment, we additional the Legislature’s aim of eradicating the invidious discrimination confronted by students in our public schools. We discover no have to impose a separate customary as a result of the discrimination is in a school. Moreover, below the Spending Clause’s clear-statement rule, the time period “sex,” as used inside Title IX, should unambiguously mean one thing other than biological intercourse-which it doesn’t-so as to conclude that the school Board violated Title IX. Title IX is narrower than the LAD on three fronts. Additionally, there are substantial variations in scope between the LAD and Title IX. The District, nonetheless, maintains that the applicable commonplace of liability ought to mirror the standard utilized in Title IX actions–the “deliberate indifference” customary. In rejecting a mere negligence normal and establishing that high bar to recovery, the Supreme Court famous that the declare at issue was an implied non-public right of action under a statute enacted pursuant to Congress’ authority underneath the Spending Clause.