on negligence, which we describe infra in text. Thus, although this section of the instructions would no longer be appropriate to describe the scope of employment in a Title VII case, it did not mistakenly allow liability to be imposed in any circumstances in which an employer should properly be absolved. 19 . We have no doubt that Madamba’s suggestive remarks could be interpreted as a threat, and we do not mean to suggest that remarks of this sort cannot found a quid pro quo claim, though we agree with the dissent that the evidence of retaliation for refusal to accede is gossamer. Nor need we predict how New Jersey will react to Faragher and Ellerth. The LAD is a remedial statute, in some respects broader and more flexible than Title VII. See Lehmann, 626 A.2d at 452; id. at 460 (<HOLDING>). This is so even though New Jersey often looks
holding that equitable relief under  502a3 does not include compensatory and punitive damages holding that money damages do not qualify as equitable relief within the meaning of  1132a3 holding empkwers strictly liable for equitable damages and relief holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief holding that a jury trial was not required when the money demand although specific was incidental and ancillary to the equitable relief requested and would ripen only if equitable relief were granted