Single-Issue Verdict Sheet Upheld in NJLAD Harassment Case When Paired with Detailed Jury Charge

EAST BRUNSWICK (LN) — The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the Board’s motion for a new trial, rejecting the district’s argument that a simplified verdict sheet misled jurors. The court held that the single interrogatory, when read of a 53-page jury charge, did not produce a miscarriage of justice.

The underlying dispute involved allegations that H.M., a student in the district, was subjected to persistent harassment by fellow student J.H. that escalated into a physical altercation in a school locker room. The harassment included derogatory slurs, physical intimidation, and isolated incidents of assault that H.M. and his mother reported to school staff throughout middle and high school.

Following a two-day charge conference, the trial judge crafted a single jury question to allow the jury to consider the plaintiff’s claim under the NJLAD. The question asked whether the Board defendants subjected H.M. to discrimination and harassment while a student school, requiring the jury to find each element by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for the plaintiff and awarded $0.50 million in compensatory damages.

The Board appealed, arguing the verdict sheet was deficient and misleading because it did not break down the specific elements of the NJLAD claim or address the district’s affirmative defenses. The defendants had proposed a seven-question interrogatory to guide the jury, but the trial judge overruled their objection to the single-question format.

In its opinion, the Appellate Division concluded that the trial judge’s jury instruction was "thorough and accurate" and that the single interrogatory properly encapsulated the elements of the NJLAD claim. The court noted that the judge explicitly explained to the jury that it was required to find each element of the plaintiff’s claim by a preponderance of the evidence to vest liability on the defendants.

"The jury was encouraged to ask any questions that might arise during deliberations. They did not, and unanimously returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor," the court wrote. "Additionally, following the announcement of the jury verdict, the court polled the jury and every member agreed with the decision."

The appellate panel found that the verdict sheet was not "clearly capable of producing an unjust result" when considered of the 53-page jury charge provided to the jury. The court emphasized that errors in interrogatories are not grounds for reversal unless they are misleading, confusing, or ambiguous, and that an accurate jury charge can often cure potential confusion.

The total judgment of $1.40 million entered court in November 2023 included the jury award and attorney fees. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the new trial motion, holding that the defendants failed to establish a miscarriage of justice under the law.

The case was argued before Judges Smith and Jablonski.