by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.” Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. at 2270. A stated policy should be “suitable to the employment circumstances.” Id. The proof at trial focused extensively on what the ACPD did and failed to do about the harassment—issuing written policies but not enforcing them, painting over of-' fensive graffiti every few months only to see it go up again in minutes, failing to investigate sexual harassment as it investigated and punished other forms of misconduct. Although it diligently attempted to convince the jury that its policies and procedures protected it, the ACPD failed to make a colorable case that its policies met the Ellerth /Faragher standards. See Hurley, 933 F.Supp. at 419; cf. Payton v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 691 A.2d 321 (1997) (<HOLDING>). In Faragher, in fact, the Court found it
holding that a person cannot be exposed to a criminal conviction simply for failing or refusing to perform an agreement for personal services to satisfy a civil debt holding school hable for sexual harassment by its employees only if the district knew or should have known and neghgently failed to take prompt effective remedial action holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees holding that a slow remedial process or one that leaves an employee exposed to harassment cannot be effective holding that procedural or remedial statutes may not be applied to pending suits at the time they become effective if doing so would destroy or impair rights that vested before the statutes effective date