Whistleblowing May Not Be Limited to Claims About Employer Wrongdoing in New Jersey

The New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) was designed to protect whistleblowing employees who have the courage to stand up to illegal or wrongful conduct by their employer.  As the courts have consistently held, the initial focus in a typical CEPA case is on the whistleblower’s prima facie case burden to establish that he/she had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the employer did something wrong by either violating a law or engaging in conduct incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy.

In an unreported opinion issued in March 2013, however, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey found that CEPA can be implicated even where there is no claim or contention that the employer did anything wrong.  In Stapleton v. DSW, Inc. (2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38502), the plaintiff employee believed that a store customer was mistreating her young child by, among other things, not changing her dirty diaper, and decided to “blow the whistle” on the customer by turning her in to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (the “Division”) out of concern for the child’s health and wellbeing.  The plaintiff employee gave the customer’s name and address to the Division after obtaining that information from the customer’s transaction with the store.  In doing so, the plaintiff violated the company’s perfectly lawful policy prohibiting the unauthorized disclosure of confidential customer information.  When the employer learned of what had happened, it discharged the plaintiff for violating its non-disclosure policy, and she filed suit under CEPA.

Not surprisingly, the company moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff was not a protected “whistleblower” because she did not allege that the company had done anything wrong or illegal.  Indeed, the plaintiff had blown the whistle on the customer, not the company.  This is where it gets interesting.  In denying the company’s motion, the District Court noted that CEPA not only protects employees who object to illegal activity, but also those who refuse to follow a policy or practice which they reasonably believe is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy.  Unlike most CEPA cases, the court in Stapleton focused on the conduct of the employee – not the employer – and concluded that she was protected under CEPA by virtue of the fact that she acted pursuant to the public policy that encourages individuals to report child abuse.  In this circumstance, the court determined that the company’s policy prohibiting the disclosure of the customer’s identity was incompatible with the State’s clear mandate to protect the health and welfare of children, and that the plaintiff was therefore engaged in protected “whistleblowing” under CEPA when she refused to “participate in” or follow that policy in order to help the Division identify the customer.

While the court’s CEPA analysis is subject to debate – there was no allegation that the employer had engaged in wrongful or illegal conduct – the plaintiff would appear to have a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where the New Jersey Child Protection Law provides immunity to employees reporting child abuse, and the New Jersey courts have held that employer policies on confidentiality must yield to matters of child safety.  Nevertheless, this opinion should serve as a caution to employers and counsel alike that the courts often take an expansive view of the protections provided under CEPA.

The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.

10 thoughts on “Whistleblowing May Not Be Limited to Claims About Employer Wrongdoing in New Jersey”

  1. Hi there juѕt wanted to give you a quick heads up.
    The words in your article ѕeem to be running off the screen in Firefox.
    I’m not sure if tһis is а format іssue or something to ɗo with browѕer compatibility but I thought I’d post to
    let you know. The style annⅾ desiɡn look great though!
    Hoppe yoou get the issue solved soon. Many thanks

  2. Greetings! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I really enjoy reading through your posts.
    Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that go over the same topics?

  3. Undeniably believe that which you said. Your
    favorite justification seemed to be at the net
    the simplest thing to have in mind of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed at the same time as other people consider concerns
    that they plainly do not recognize about. You managed to hit the nail upon the highest as smartly as
    outlined out the entire thing without having
    side-effects , people can take a signal. Will likely be back to get more.

  4. Thanks for the marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you could be a
    great author.I will remember to bookmark your blog and will
    come back down the road. I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great
    job, have a nice weekend!

  5. Thanks for ones mɑrvelous posting! І actuaⅼly enjoyed reading
    it, you’re a great author. I will alѡays bookmark yoour blog
    and will οften come back inn the foreseeable fᥙture. I want to encourage you
    to continue your greaat posts, have a nice afternoon!

  6. Hi, There’s no doubt that your website could be having web browser compatibility issues.
    When I look at your website in Safari, it looks fine but when opening
    in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping issues.

    I simply wanted to provide you with a quick heads up!
    Besides that, wonderful blog!

Comments are closed.

©2024 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
Privacy Policy