Imagine a public sector worker reports sexual harassment, the investigation runs its full course, the harasser gets fired. That’s how it should work, right? But then the union files a grievance. Suddenly the victim’s shut out of an arbitration process that could undo every outcome she fought for. She can be called as a witness. Her employer can say it represents her interests. But she has no independent right to speak, appeal, or stop a reversal.
A January 29, 2026 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling ended that arrangement.
In In the Matter of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and AFSCME Local 888, the Court ruled unanimously that federal Title IX regulations preempt the parts of union arbitration procedures that exclude harassment victims from their own cases.
If you work at a public university, school district, or any other federally funded institution in New Jersey, the grievance process now has to treat you, the person who reported the harassment, with the same procedural rights as the person who was disciplined.
Quick Answer
Under the Rutgers v. AFSCME Local 888 decision, a union contract that blocks a harassment victim from participating in disciplinary hearings or appeals is unenforceable. Federal Title IX law requires that both sides get the same procedural footing. Following this guideline is now a mandatory condition of receiving federal funding.
What Actually Happened in This Case
In February 2022, a Rutgers custodian — identified in court documents only as “Jane” — filed a Title IX complaint against a male co-worker for physical assault and ongoing sexual harassment. Both worked under the same union, AFSCME Local 888.
Rutgers followed its 2020 Title IX policy, which mandates a full investigation and a live hearing with both parties present. The co-worker was found responsible and terminated in September 2022. He appealed but Rutgers denied it.
Then the union filed a grievance under the collective negotiation agreement (CNA), which provided a four-step process ending in binding arbitration. That process gave the accused employee every right to challenge his termination. But Jane didn’t get any of those rights. She could testify. The university could nominally represent her. But she had no independent standing to take part, object, or appeal if an arbitrator reversed the outcome.
Justice Fasciale, writing for a unanimous court, rejected every proposed workaround. Appearing as a witness isn’t the same as being a party. The university and Jane aren’t the same party. Filing a separate hostile work environment grievance on her behalf would address different issues entirely. None of it satisfied what federal law actually requires.
Why a Union Contract Can’t Override Federal Civil Rights Law
The ruling turns on 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(b), part of the U.S. Department of Education’s 2020 Title IX regulations. That provision requires any grievance procedure for formal sexual harassment complaints to apply equally to both the person who reported the harassment and the person accused.
The Rutgers CNA failed that test on its face. The accused had a full right to contest his termination through binding arbitration. But it needed to give Jane equal rights, and it didn’t. The Supreme Court found that allowing that arbitration to proceed directly undermined what Title IX was designed to do. An arbitrator could reverse the outcome, with Jane powerless to stop it.
The Court made an important clarification: this ruling doesn’t eliminate union grievance rights. Rutgers and AFSCME Local 888 can renegotiate their contract to follow Title IX. The Court specifically left room for compliant alternatives. What the parties cannot do is restore a system that gives the accused full appeal rights while giving the complainant none.
It’s also worth noting that harassment doesn’t always take overtly physical forms. Coercive control and non-physical abuse are recognized under New Jersey law, and the same principle applies: victims of that conduct deserve equal standing in any process that determines accountability.
What “Equal Procedure” Actually Means in Practice
The Court’s holding centers on procedural symmetry. For a Title IX-related grievance procedure to hold up in New Jersey, it now needs to check four boxes:
- Equal access to evidence. Both parties get the same opportunity to review what was gathered in the investigation.
- Equal right to representation. If one side can bring an attorney or advisor, so can the other.
- Equal participation in hearings. The victim cannot be locked out of proceedings that determine whether disciplinary action stands.
- Equal appeal rights. If the accused can challenge the finding, the person who filed the complaint needs a comparable path to do the same.
Sometimes, people can get psychological injuries such as PTSD, anxiety disorders, physical symptoms from prolonged exposure to a hostile environment. In those cases, being excluded from the process can actively undermine recovery. Having genuine standing in the outcome often matters as much as the outcome itself.
Who Gets Affected by This Ruling
The case started at a university, but the ruling touches any publicly funded workplace in New Jersey where Title IX and union contracts both apply.
- Public universities. Institutions like Rutgers, Rowan, and NJIT accept federal funding with Title IX obligations attached. No union contract can override those obligations. If you’re a staff member at a public university, your right to take part in harassment proceedings now supersedes whatever a CNA says about it.
- K-12 public schools. New Jersey schools receive a lot of state and federal funding. Title IX compliance is a condition of receiving that funding. Any collective bargaining agreement that mirrors the Rutgers structure needs to be reviewed. School boards that haven’t done that audit are taking a real legal risk.
- Domestic workers. New Jersey expanded its Law Against Discrimination in 2024 to include domestic workers like nannies, housekeepers, home health aides. These people now have the same harassment protections as employees in traditional workplaces. Most aren’t unionized, but it’s an example of the state making headwinds in finding and closing the gaps that have historically kept victims from reaching the process.
What the NJ Law Against Discrimination Still Covers
The Rutgers ruling reinforces what the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination already provides. The LAD prohibits harassment based on 20 protected characteristics, and it’s among the strongest workplace anti-discrimination statutes in the country.
If you’ve experienced harassment in a New Jersey workplace, your main options are:
- File with the Division on Civil Rights. The deadline is 180 days from the incident. That window is firm and shorter than most people assume.
- File a civil claim in Superior Court. You can seek damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and related harm. If the harassment came from a supervisor and the employer failed to act, the employer faces strict liability.
- Document everything, starting now. Dates, times, who was present, what was said or done, what your employer’s response was (or wasn’t). Everything else builds out from here.
In some harassment cases, the employer’s conduct goes beyond indifference and crosses into retaliation or forced resignation — which can also constitute wrongful termination under NJ law. If you were pushed out of your job after filing a complaint, that’s a separate claim worth exploring.
Key Takeaways
- Federal law beats union contracts. If your union’s grievance procedure excludes you from your own harassment case, Title IX takes precedence. The contract provision is unenforceable.
- Both sides must get equal footing. Any hearing or arbitration must give the complainant and the accused the same rights. They need the same evidence access, same access to representation, same ability to appeal.
- The Rutgers ruling is narrow but powerful. It applies specifically to publicly funded institutions with union contracts that mirror Rutgers’ CNA structure. But that covers a lot of NJ workplaces.
- Union rights aren’t eliminated. Rutgers and AFSCME can renegotiate a compliant contract. The ruling doesn’t end collective bargaining, it just sets a floor for victim participation.
- The 180-day clock is real. You have 180 days from the incident to file with the NJ Division on Civil Rights. Internal union processes don’t pause that deadline.
- Employer liability is broad. Public institutions that fail to maintain impartial complaint processes or use union procedures to sideline victims are exposing themselves to enormous legal risk.
What the Rutgers Ruling Means for Your Case
The January 2026 decision in Rutgers v. AFSCME Local 888 resolved something that had let harassment victims be sidelined for years. When a labor contract and federal civil rights law conflict, federal law will always win. A union doesn’t get to grant the accused a full appeals process while giving the complainant no standing at all.
If you’re a university employee, a teacher, or a public sector worker in New Jersey who has been told to wait on the sidelines while a grievance process runs without you, you have grounds to push back. Understanding exactly how the Rutgers decision applies to your specific contract, and how it layers on top of the LAD, is the kind of thing that actually requires a lawyer, not a blog post. If you’re not sure where to start, knowing how to choose the right attorney for an employment and civil rights matter can make a real difference in how your case unfolds. And if retaliation or job loss is part of your situation, it’s worth understanding how an employment lawyer in NJ approaches wrongful termination before you take your next step.
But knowing the precedent exists is where it starts.
Resources
NJCourts.gov – In the Matter of Rutgers v. AFSCME Local 888 (A-46-24) (090230)
Justia Law – In the Matter of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey v. AFSCME Local 888
