Shaw does not qualify as a supervisor under the NJLAD. (ii) Maintenance of an Anti-Harassment Policy As an alternative basis for liability, Plaintiff argues that Lidestri negligently failed to publish and train upon an effective anti-sexual harassment policy for all employees. (PL’s Br. 4.) Under New Jersey law, courts “adhere to the principle that if an employer has exercised due care in acting to prevent a sexually discriminatory hostile work environment, vicarious liability should not attach. The establishment of an effective anti-sexual harassment workplace policy and complaint mechanism evidences an employer’s due care and may provide affirmative protection from vicarious liability.” Gaines v. Bellino, 173 N.J. 301, 801 A.2d 322, 323. (2002); see also Cavuoti 735 A.2d at 556 (<HOLDING>) In order for an employer to enjoy the benefit
recognizing that new jersey law affords a form of a safe haven from vicarious liability for the harassing conduct of an employee for employers who promulgate and support an active antiharassment policy recognizing common law right to indemnity when a partys liability is vicarious holding that under louisiana law dishonest act exclusion in employers commercial liability policy excluded negligence and vicarious liability claims against employer for losses based upon the excluded conduct of its employee holding that  there is no vicarious liability on the part of the employer for torts committed by the employee solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employers business  quotation and other citations omitted holding that a supervisor cannot be held personally liable for the unconstitutional conduct of a subordinate based on vicarious liability