# Cavuoti v. New Jersey Transit Corp.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · August 10, 1999 · 161 N.J. 107

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692111

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph Cavuoti and Linda L. Cavuoti, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, Deborah Finn, and R.J. Smith, Defendants-Respondents and Cross-Appellants, and Ed McGittigan, John Doe and Richard Doe (Fictitious Names of Persons Whose Identities Are Presently Unknown), Defendants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** August 10, 1999
- **Citations:** 161 N.J. 107; 735 A.2d 548; 80 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 823; 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1005
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Pollock
- **Judges:** Pollock
- **Cited by:** 84 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692111

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that New Jersey law “afford[s] a form of a safe haven [from vicarious liability for the harassing conduct of an employee] for employers who promulgate and support an active, anti-harassment policy.”
- stating that “when a statute has been judicially construed, the failure of the Legislature subsequently to act is evidence of legislative acquiescence in the construction given to the statute.”
- explaining that "when a statute has been judicially construed, the failure of the Legislature subsequently to act is evidence of legislative acquiescence in the construction given"
- holding that the New Jersey discrimination statute “allows the award of punitive damages against public entities” and affirming an award of punitive damages against NJ Transit
- holding that in Law Against Discrimination case punitive damages could be awarded against NJT as public entity; NJT’s status as public entity not challenged

## Opinion text

POLLOCK, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Except for its holding that a public entity is subject to an award for punitive damages under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42, I join in the Court’s opinion. The Tort Claims Act (TCA) provides that “[n]o punitive or exemplary damages shall be awarded against a public entity.” N.J.S.A. 59:9-2. Nothing in the LAD expressly or impliedly repeals that provision. As the Court acknowledges, the LAD simply provides that “[a]ll remedies available in common law tort actions shall be available to prevailing plaintiffs.” N.J.S.A. 10:5-13. The absence of an exception for public entities suggests not that the Legislature intended that public entities would be subject to claims for punitive damages, but that the TCA, including its ban on punitive damage awards, would continue to apply to such entities.
Five years ago, in Abbamont v. Piscataway Board of Education, 138 N.J. 405, 435-36 , 650 A.2d 958 , I likewise dissented from the Court’s holding that under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -9, claimants are entitled to punitive damages. The authorization for the award of punitive damages under CEPA, which specifically authorize such damages, N.J.S.A. 34:19-5f, is even clearer than that in the LAD. Then, as now, I doubt that in either the CEPA or the LAD the Legislature intended to saddle taxpayers with the ultimate obligation for paying punitive damage awards. Also, I doubt that the Legislature intended in either statute to impose on rate payers, such as the people who ride the New Jersey Transit trains and buses, the ultimate cost of paying punitive damage awards. Such awards in CEPA and LAD cases can be substantial. Here, for *136 example, plaintiff was awarded $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Another recent case, which involved the sexual harassment of one prison guard by another, resulted in the .award of $3,750,000 against the State, consisting of $750,000 for compensatory damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages. Brian Donahue & Kathy Barrett Carter, $3.75M for Guard in No-sex Lawsuit, Star-Ledger, May 29, 1999. Such awards, which represent sums in addition to those needed to compensate claimants, can impose a heavy burden on the public.
As in Abbamont , “I believe that not permitting punitive damage awards against public employers is more consistent with the legislative intent. The best solution would be for the Legislature to revisit the issue and resolve it definitively.” 138 N.J. at 436 , 650 A.2d 958 . Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from that part of the Court’s opinion construing the LAD to subject New Jersey Transit to a claim of punitive damages.
Chief Justice PORITZ and Justice GARIBALDI join in this opinion.
For affirmance-justices HANDLER, O’HERN, STEIN and COLEMAN — 4.
For concurrance in part; dissenting in part — Chief Justice PORITZ, and Justices POLLOCK and GARIBALDI — 3.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692111. Public record. Not legal advice.