'Annoying' Man Did Not Create Hostile Environment

Two female Princeton Seminary students failed to prove that the attentions of an elderly, "socially tone-deaf" tenant of school housing created a sexually hostile environment for them, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled.

"Although socially inept and, no doubt, annoying, [the tenant's] conduct did not approach sexual harassment," the court said.

"Persons who are socially tone-deaf are not, by that characteristic, necessarily the equivalent of sexual harassers," it concluded.

The justices noted that the women had an obligation to tell William Miller to "go away," but neither did so.

"To allow the [state's] Law Against Discrimination to replace such basic human interaction trivializes the purpose for which the LAD was established," the court said.

According to the opinion, Miller is a 1964 alumnus of and a contributor to the seminary, where he occupied one of its apartments.

He was 70 at the time Beth Godfrey and Jennifer Kile sued the seminary under state law, claiming that Miller's attending campus events, asking them out, sending them gifts and persistently demanding that they respond to his messages created a hostile environment for them. His attentions continued for almost three years, they alleged.

During that period, both women reported their discomfort to seminary officials, who barred Miller from entering the campus center "for any reason other than to attend events open to the public." However, the plaintiffs said, Miller continued to violate the seminary's restrictions, and the ban was lifted.

When the women pressed their case with the seminary, officials told them the sexual harassment policy had no bearing on Miller because he was a public tenant and not a member of the seminary community.

Godfrey and Kile sued the seminary in the New Jersey Superior Court in April 2003, alleging sexual harassment in violation of the state's Law Against Discrimination.

The case went to trial, and the seminary moved for dismissal, which the trial judge granted.

The women appealed to the Superior Court Appellate Division, which found no indication of sexual harassment because "none of the incidents or communications by Mr. Miller involved any sexual language, any references to sex or any inappropriate sexual comments or suggestions."

Godfrey and Kile appealed to the state Supreme Court, which affirmed.

Although Godfrey and Kile said they felt "stalked," "on guard" and "distressed" concerning Miller, their subjective reactions to his conduct "do not control, or otherwise affect, the determination of whether the conduct is severe or pervasive, which requires application of the reasonable-woman standard," the high court said.

"Viewed from that perspective, we have no doubt that the trial court and the appellate majority correctly regarded the totality of the evidence as falling short of severe or pervasive conduct that a reasonable woman would determine to constitute sexual harassment," the justices said.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.

The plaintiffs are represented by John McDonald and Amy Dambeck of Stark & Stark in Lawrenceville, N.J.Counsel for the seminary are Brian Sullivan of Stevens & Lee in Princeton and Bradley Mitchell and Nanette Embres of New York.