Articles Tagged with New Jersey Whistleblower Attorneys

Published on:

racism-2733840__340-300x300When an employee is being harassed or disciplined in his employment as a result of discrimination or retaliation for the employee’s objections to illegal conduct, there are multiple laws which may provide relief to the employee.  These include, for instance, New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (the “LAD”) and New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA,” also known as the “Whistleblower Law.”)

Both Acts may allow the employee to bring a lawsuit against the employer for a wrongful termination or other adverse employment action (i.e. demotion), as well as harassment.  When an employer is wrongfully disciplining or retaliating against an employee, it is important for the employee to preserve and maintain records of the wrongful conduct of the employer in order to support her claim that she suffered a wrongful employment action.  However, employees need to be cautious in what records they preserve and how they preserve those records.

In the case of Quinlan v. Curtiss Wright Corporation  Joyce Quinlan believed that as a result of gender discrimination, her employer had passed her over for a promotion. She then began copying confidential human resources files which she believed supported her claim that she was being discriminated against and she produced the copies in the course of discovery during litigation.  The employer later fired her for “taking” the records (while litigation was ongoing).  Quinlan then amended her complaint to include the claim that she was retaliated against for essentially participating in the LAD suit against the employer.  The Law Against Discrimination  not only prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of a protected classification (gender, nationality, religion, race, etc.), but it also prohibits retaliation against a person for opposing discrimination, filing a discrimination complaint, or participating in a LAD proceeding.

Published on:

strategy-1710763__340-300x160One of the most difficult issues for New Jersey employment attorneys is when federal law preempts New Jersey employment law.  One of the most thorny areas is the intersection of the Federal Labor Management Relations Act, which governs the interpretation and application of collective bargaining agreements (union contracts) in the private sector.  Fortunately, New Jersey’s Appellate Division has recently issued an important opinion clarifying this complex area in the context of disability discrimination and retaliation by an employer against an employee for filing a workers compensation claim.

Background

Brian Hejda was a truck driver for Bell Container Corp., and a member of Teamsters Local Union 813.  He suffered a workplace knee injury.  He had various restrictions on what he could do at work, and he was medically limited to light duty.  He filed a workers compensation claim; Bell denied that he sustained a disabling injury.  Eventually Hejda was asymptomatic and able to return to full duty, although his doctors advised that he would eventually need arthroscopic surgery to repair the damage.  Hejda reported to work for a week but was not given much to do.  When he returned the following week, he was told to leave.

Published on:

police-1714956__340-300x200New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) provides a remedy for employees who are wrongfully terminated in retaliation for objecting to conduct which is believed to be illegal.  This Act is often referred to as the New Jersey “whistleblower law.”  In fact, it is one of the most liberally interpreted and expansive whistleblower laws in the country.  CEPA is a relatively new law, enacted n 1986, and thus has been the subject of much debate, misunderstanding, and misapplication.

CEPA provides wrongfully terminated or retaliated against employees with an avenue to seek redress.  An employee is protected under CEPA if she disclosed, objected to, or refused to participate in an act, policy, or practice of the employer which the employee reasonably believed violated a law, regulation, or public policy.  If the employee is then fired, harassed, or otherwise retaliated against as a direct result of the disclosure, objection, or refusal, that employee may have a claim under CEPA.

In the recent case of Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 1 v. City of Camden, police officers brought an action against the City claiming (among other things) retaliation in violation of CEPA for the officers’ objections to the City’s policies regarding police-civilian interactions, based upon the belief that the policy violated the anti-quota law.