Not An Employee

The New Jersey Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of an action brought by a court administrator against the Administrative Office of the Courts due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship

Plaintiff has been employed as a court administrator for the Municipal Court of the Township since 2019. She filed a complaint against the AOC and defendant Municipal Court Judge James B. Sloan in October 2023, alleging Sloan engaged in inappropriate conduct when he served as a public defender in the Township and later when he became the municipal court judge in January 2023. Specifically, plaintiff claimed Sloan “made several disturbing sexist comments” and “offensive, sexist remarks throughout his time working with” her. She also asserted that on April 25, 2023, while Sloan was adjudicating a matter before the court, he came off the bench and “grabbed [plaintiff’s] hair and yanked it back forcibly.”

The next day, plaintiff filed “a police report about . . . Sloan’s assault of” her. The Police Chief for the Township, Daniel Young, notified the Township Administrator about plaintiff’s complaint and also informed the AOC of Sloan’s alleged misconduct by contacting Morris-Sussex County Vicinage Municipal Division Manager Rebecca Muller. Muller purportedly advised Chief Young that she would “reach[] out to” plaintiff to speak with her about this matter. Later that day, plaintiff contacted Muller. Muller allegedly advised the AOC “was not taking any action regarding . . . Sloan’s behavior” because “it was a Township matter.” Muller did inform plaintiff she could file an ACJC ethics complaint against Sloan.

On May 1, 2023, following an investigation and interviews with witnesses to the incident, the Township suspended Sloan from serving as a municipal court judge. That same month, plaintiff filed an ACJC complaint against Sloan when he attempted to return to the bench because the AOC had not taken any action against him. On June 6, 2023, Assignment Judge Stuart Minkowitz signed an order suspending Sloan from acting as a municipal court judge.

Plaintiff’s complaint asserted sexual harassment claims against Sloan and the AOC under the LAD and an aiding and abetting claim against Sloan in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(e). The AOC moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and the court held oral argument in March 2024. The AOC argued neither plaintiff nor Sloan was employed by the AOC, and plaintiff’s claims failed because she did not establish the requisite employer-employee relationship under the LAD. It further asserted the facts giving rise to plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim occurred solely in the municipality, which “is not something in which the AOC has any oversight.”

The court

In conclusion, if the Legislature intended municipal court administrators to be considered employees of the AOC, it could have expressly done so. Instead, the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 2B:12-10(a), specifically establishing that municipalities “shall provide for an administrator” of municipal courts and pay “their compensation.” Although the AOC provides oversight and supervision of municipal courts, that does not equate with the AOC establishing an employer-employee relationship with plaintiff.

(Mike Frisch)