Skip to Content

Category Archives: Conscientious Employee Protection Act

August 29, 2019

Supreme Court Rules on CEPA Action

In a case involving the Conscientious Employee Protection Act at N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et. seq., the New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff is not required to precisely cite a statutory source of perceived criminal activity when bringing a claim under N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(c)(2), and upheld a jury verdict on that claim.  The Court did  Read More arrow

August 17, 2016

NJ Supreme Court ruled that a collective bargaining agreement cannot trump a CEPA claim

2016 N.J. LEXIS 855, * In PUGLIA v. ELK PIPELINE, INC., A-38 September Term 2014, 075171 2016 N.J. LEXIS 855 (August 16, 2016), the plaintiff complained of a reduction in his wages and that of co-workers. The dispute was resolved but shortly thereafter, he was laid-off. He filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, a violation  Read More arrow

July 22, 2015

What is a “reasonable” belief of wrongdoing under CEPA

In order to establish a prima facie case under CEPA, a plaintiff must allege factual support for the following: (1) Plaintiff reasonably believed Defendant’s actions were violating the law; (2) Plaintiff performed some whistle-blowing action under N.J.S.A. 34:19-3c; (3) Defendant took some adverse employment action against Plaintiff; and (4) a causal nexus exists between the whistle-blowing  Read More arrow

June 16, 2015

Analysis of whether a plaintiff is an “employee” under CEPA or the LAD

In, Estate of Kotsovska v. Liebman, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 568, 39-41 (N.J. June 11, 2015)the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the analasis to be conducted under CEPA and LAD where  the plaintiff’s status as an “employee” is at issue. The Court found that “labels can be illusory as opposed to illuminating” when taken out of context.  It also restated its view  Read More arrow

December 23, 2013

Stealing Employer’s Records is Not a Good Way to Start a Law Suit- Public Employee’s Misappropriation of Employer’s Documents Sufficient to Sustain Criminal Indictment

An employee of the North Bergen Board of Education brought suit against the Board alleging, among other things, a violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act and the Law Against Discrimination.  During the course of the civil action, it was revealed that the plaintiff unlawfully possessed “hundreds” of documents owned by the Board.  The Board notified  Read More arrow

July 24, 2013

Winning Punitive Damages in a CEPA Case Just Got Tougher

A unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court decided in Longo v. Pleasure Productions, Inc. (A-37-11) that in CEPA cases, a jury considering a punitive damages claim must be charged with an upper management instruction.  That is, a jury must consider whether, by clear and convincing evidence, upper management was complicit in the alleged egregious wrongful conduct.  Read More arrow

July 17, 2013

Tattle-Telling of Minor Rule Infractions Does Not a CEPA Claim Make

The Supreme Court of New Jersey in Battaglia v. United Parcel Service, Inc., A-86/87-11 (July 17, 2013) restricted  what constitutes “protected activity” under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).  The court made clear that being a gadfly critical of co-workers conduct does not reach the type of  Read More arrow