Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) announced today that DCR has issued Findings of Probable Cause in a matter where a resident living in a condominium at The Summit in Neptune repeatedly harassed a neighbor on the basis of national origin and sex in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The Findings of Probable Cause allege that the alleged harasser, the owner of the condominium where the alleged harasser lived, and the condominium association were all liable for the harassment under the LAD.

In September 2023, an individual who owned a condominium in The Summit complex filed a complaint with DCR. She alleged that Edward Leo, the live-in boyfriend of Donna Knepper, a neighboring condo owner, subjected her to discrimination and harassment based on national origin and sex. The complainant alleged that Leo had repeatedly subjected her and her relatives to discriminatory and harassing slurs, threats, and conduct since the spring of 2020 because she is a Russian woman.

According to the complainant, Leo engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct that included, among other things, repeatedly using profanity to insult the complainant based on her national origin and sex; taking photos of and videotaping the complainant’s property; calling the complainant a “Russian spy” while shining a flashlight at her; playing Russian music at a very high volume as the complainant arrived home; wielding an axe in a threatening manner; throwing a beer bottle at the complainant and her neighbor; and directing offensive statements towards complainant’s neighbors as they attempted to intervene.

In the Findings of Probable Cause announced today, DCR found sufficient evidence to support a reasonable ground of suspicion that Leo interfered with the complainant’s right to access housing free from discrimination in violation of the LAD.

DCR also found sufficient evidence to support a reasonable ground of suspicion that Knepper, the owner of the property where Leo resided, and the condominium association, The Summit at Neptune Condominium Association, were also liable for Leo’s discriminatory and harassing conduct. Under the LAD, landlords and condominium associations may be held liable for harassment if they know or should know about the harassment, have the power to take steps to end the harassment, and fail to take prompt action to end the pattern of harassment. DCR found that Knepper and the condo association knew about Leo’s harassing conduct, but did not take prompt and effective measures to prevent, remedy, or address Leo’s persistent harassment of the complainant.

“There’s no excuse for the kind of discrimination described in this case, and there’s no excuse for the people in power who allowed it to continue,” said Attorney General Platkin. “We’re putting tenants, homeowners, and homeowners’ associations on notice: if you harass someone or allow someone to be harassed because of where they come from or their sex, we will hold you accountable.”

“No one should face the sting of discrimination or harassment anywhere, especially in or around their home. That’s why it’s so important that property owners, management companies, and homeowners associations take effective action to address resident-on-resident harassment,” said Sundeep Iyer, Director of the Division on Civil Rights. “The enforcement actions we’re announcing today underscore the strength of the protections our laws provide against bias-based harassment in housing, and we will continue our work to enforce those protections across our state.”

In conducting its investigation, DCR reviewed dozens of videos and photos from the complainant’s security camera and personal cell phone, spanning from 2020 through 2024. Those videos and photos, along with other evidence uncovered in DCR’s investigation, supported a reasonable ground of suspicion that Leo engaged in a pattern of harassment that interfered with the terms, conditions, and privileges of the complainant’s housing. Under the LAD, it is unlawful for any person to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any other person in the enjoyment of any right granted or protected by the LAD.

DCR’s investigation also found that Leo escalated his harassment of the complainant after she began reporting his conduct, supporting a reasonable ground of suspicion that Leo retaliated against the complainant for reporting his harassment in violation of the LAD.

With respect to Knepper, the owner of the condominium where Leo lived, the evidence uncovered during DCR’s investigation showed that Knepper made little effort to stop, correct, or address Leo’s conduct. There was no evidence that Knepper warned Leo to stop harassing the complainant, or that Knepper otherwise took disciplinary action against Leo based on his harassment. The evidence suggested that Knepper ignored violation notices received from the condo association in connection with Leo’s conduct.

The condominium association, meanwhile, did take some action to address Leo’s harassment, issuing 16 violation letters to Knepper between June 2022 and January 2024 and assessing $300 in fines against Knepper. Leo’s conduct, however, continued to escalate, and the condominium association did not promptly take stronger actions in response to the harassment. DCR’s investigation found that the association did not attempt to collect the fines it levied against Knepper, and when the conduct escalated, it did not increase its fines or take other adequate action to discipline Knepper or Leo or curtail Knepper’s privileges as a member of the condo community while the harassment persisted. Under the LAD, it is not enough for a housing provider merely to take some action in response to harassment; rather, the provider must take remedial measures that are reasonably calculated to end the harassment.

The Findings of Probable Cause announced today do not represent a final adjudication of the cases. Rather, a Finding of Probable Cause means DCR has concluded its preliminary investigation and determined there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion the LAD has been violated. Following a final adjudication on the merits by the Superior Court or by the Office of Administrative Law, a respondent found conclusively to violate the LAD may be required to pay a penalty of up to $10,000 per violation for their first adjudicated violation, and up to $50,000 per violation if they commit multiple adjudicated violations within a five-year period.