"New Jersey Whistleblower lawyers" Tag Archives

Published on: August 17, 2023

Supreme Court Decision Indicates That Application of the Joint Employer Doctrine in New Jersey Employment Law Cases is Question for Jury

New Jersey employment law recognizes the concept of “joint employers.” Under this legal doctrine, an employee can have two employers even though he only gets paid by one. The doctrine provides that when more than one entity acts as a person’s employer, both are jointly

small-business-1-300x199
responsible for complying with employee protection laws such as the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (known as CEPA or the New Jersey Whistleblower Law).

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey explained in the case of Pukowsky v. Caruso that the following factors are to be considered when determining whether the joint employer doctrine should cause a person or business to be a joint employer of an employee for employment law purposes.

Published on: August 25, 2020

Appellate Division Issues Important New Jersey Employment Law Decision on Whistleblower Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Employment Law Evidence Issues

Our employment lawyers represent employees and employers in all aspects of New Jersey employment law. One of the most litigated issues is the evidence which an employee must present to demonstrate that retaliation or discrimination was behind an adverse action, such as supreme-administrative-court-3565618_960_720-300x200 firing or demotion. The Appellate Division recently issued an important decision on the ability of jurors to infer retaliation from circumstantial evidence.

The Yatauro Case

Published on: December 12, 2017

New Jersey Whistleblower

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

whistleblower-1764379__340-300x300 New Jersey employment law protects employees who object to or report illegal conduct by their employers. New Jersey’s whistleblower protections, particularly the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, have been recognized as the strongest in the nation. The various sources of these protections are discussed below.

New Jersey’s Common Law – the Original Protection

New Jersey’s common law – the body of law derived from prior court decisions – holds that it is a civil wrong for an employer to fire an employee “in violation of a clear mandate of public policy.” What this has been interpreted to mean in the seminal New Jersey Supreme Court case of Pierce v Ortho Pharmaceuticals Corp. is that an employer cannot fire an employee in retaliation for the employee acting in opposition to a practice by the employer which was in violation of public policy, which in practice meant against the law.

Published on: May 30, 2014

New Jersey’s Anti Retaliation Laws

by Boris Peyner

New Jersey employees in the private sector and many in the public sector are known as at-will employees. This means that employees may be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason. Employees, however, cannot be fired for retaliatory reason. New Jersey has expansive laws that protect employees from their employers’ retaliatory conduct, including termination.

Employers can retaliate against employees in many different forms. Employers can retaliate against employees through harassment. For example, employers may try to reprimand, demote, or pass over for promotions employees who raise certain complaints or file certain claims. Another form of retaliation is firing an employee for engaging in certain activity.

However, not every termination or reprimand allows employees to have an actionable claim against employers. Instead, employees must engage in certain protected activity and the retaliatory conduct must be the motivation for the employees’ protected activity.

New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act also known as New Jersey ‘s “Whistleblower” law makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who object to or refuse to participate in an activity which the employees reasonably believe are illegal, criminal or fraudulent, or violates a clear mandate of public policy relating to public health, safety, welfare or the environment. Employers which retaliate against employees who object or refuse to participate in this type of activity can subject themselves to a lawsuit and significant consequences.
Continue reading