Court: Officer a victim of bias

The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a Haddonfield police officer, who is Jewish, had suffered a hostile work environment because of anti-Semitic remarks made by coworkers and supervisors.

In its opinion, the court asserted for the first time that the standard for demonstrating religious-based harassment was the same as for sexual and racial discrimination in the workplace.

The officer, Jason Cutler, sued after a fellow officer made a comment in 1999 about "those dirty Jews."

His lawsuit went on to describe a number of other incidents, such as a superior officer telling him "Jews make all the money," and the former police chief asking him why he didn't have a "big Jew . . . nose."

"One would not have to be thin-skinned to perceive these comments as hostile to persons of Jewish faith," the court wrote in its opinion.

Cutler prevailed at a 2003 trial, but the jury did not award him any damages. A state appeals court last year overturned the jury's verdict.

The Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the verdict, with two of the seven justices not participating.

The appeals court found that the discrimination Cutler faced was "sporadic and not sufficiently severe . . . to create a hostile work environment."

"When the Appellate Court decision was issued, there was a lot of concern from elements of the Jewish community . . . that there would be an unfair standard for establishing Anti-Semitism in the workplace," said Etzion Neuer, regional director for the Anti-Defamation League.

He said the lower court diminished what Cutler had experienced by referring to the treatment as "teasing."

The Supreme Court said that, if courts had perceived a higher threshold for demonstrating religious workplace harassment, "then that misapprehension must end."

Mario Iavicoli, Haddonfield's attorney, said the Supreme Court decision "raised the bar" for what was permissible in the workplace.

He said before this decision, ethnic slurs would have to be intentionally mean-spirited to cross the line.

"You can't even joke any longer in the workplace . . . It's an important decision because it gives notice to employees and employers," he said. "There isn't any room in the workplace to joke about ethnicity."

Cutler's attorney, Clifford Van Syoc, said the crude comments his client heard would never have been permissible. He referred to another Haddonfield officer who said, "Let's get rid of all the dirty Jews."

"That's clearly a reference to the Holocaust," Van Syoc said. "There's six million reasons why that's not funny."

Cutler joined the force in 1995 and is now a sergeant.

He still has an outstanding claim that he was illegally retaliated against for his lawsuit, and Van Syoc hopes to seek damages again from the earlier verdict.

"We certainly feel sorry for the taxpayers of Haddonfield because millions of dollars have been thrown away for nothing," Van Syoc said.

The defense introduced evidence that Cutler participated in the ribald culture in the Haddonfield Police Department, which included a "humor file" of dirty jokes, sexual images and crass caricatures.

William Tambussi, who represented Haddonfield's former public safety director, said the trial jury "must have taken into account Cutler's behavior" in not awarding him damages.

"The humor file was not the Haddonfield Police Department's brightest day," he added.

Neuer said the Supreme Court decision shouldn't be viewed as having a chilling effect on making jokes in the workplace.

"But it should make people think twice about the type of humor they use," he said.