On March 27, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court sent a hostile work environment, sexual harassment case back down to the trial court for another trial to set the amount of punitive damages against an employer. The case, Tarr v. Bob Ciasulli’s Mack Auto Mall, Inc., was before the Court for a second time. The Court’s first decision in Tarr established important principles for emotional distress and aiding and abetting liability in employment law cases. In its most recent Tarr decision, the Court rejected the employer’s argument that its “ability to pay” a punitive damages award should be based only on its “financial condition” when it sexually harassed the female employee many years ago. Rather, the Court held that the jury may consider not only the employer’s financial condition at the time of the wrongdoing, but also events occurring afterward that concern its ability to pay, including when judgment is entered years after the harassment. According to the Court, assessing an employer’s ability to pay as of the time when judgment is entered recognizes “that that is the time that the wrongdoer must feel the sting of an appropriately sized punitive damages penalty.” The Court’s most recent decision in Tarr clarified an ambiguity from earlier cases that decided an employer’s ability to pay should be based only on when the wrongful conduct occurred.