JAMIELYN GERARD VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)

NJSUPERCTAPPDIVSeptember 12, 2017No. A-2667-15T4

Plaintiff WinSurface Source International, Inc.

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

HarassmentConstructive Discharge

Outcome

The appellate court reversed the Board of Review's denial of unemployment benefits, finding that the claimant had good cause to quit due to ongoing harassment and the employer's failure to take effective corrective action despite repeated complaints.

Browse more:Harassment cases Constructive Discharge cases

Similar Rulings

Roby v. McKesson Corp.

Cal. SupremeNov 2009

Plaintiff Win

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLAY PRINTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

4th CircuitMar 1992

Defendant Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. WC&M Enterprises, Inc.

5th CircuitAug 2007

Plaintiff Win

Susan M. ROSENBERG, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. and John Wyllys, Defendants, Appellants

1st CircuitFeb 1999

Mixed Result

Jorge VEGA and Eusebio Leon, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. KODAK CARIBBEAN, LTD., Defendant, Appellee

1st CircuitAug 1993

Defendant Win

Read Full Opinion All Rulings

Browse Related

More harassment cases

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.