retaliation lawyer

Court Revives Nurse’s Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Rutgers School of Biomedical and Health Services

January 20, 2021 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey has reversed a trial judge’s the dismissal of a whistleblower lawsuit brought by a former licensed nurse of Rutgers University School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, which used to be the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (Rutgers). This court’s decision will revive the ex-nurses lawsuit and allow her claims of whistleblower retaliation under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act to proceed to trial.

Ms. Herbe worked as a licensed nurse at Rutgers since 2009 and had recently been promoted to the position of Clinical Nurse Coordinator for the Child Health Program. Over the course of three days, when she and two coworkers along with their supervisor were assigned to audit patient charts, the supervisor admittedly abandoned that task and brought one of Ms. Herbe’s coworkers along with her to help her fill out an application to Rutgers’ graduate nursing program. Ms. Herbe reported her supervisor for theft of time, among other rule violations, via an anonymous employee hotline. The Business Manager for the Child Health Program investigated Ms. Herbe’s anonymous allegations and found them to be credible. Both the supervisor and coworker were disciplined, including loss of leave benefit time and removal of the supervisor’s application from consideration by the graduate program.

Immediately after they were disciplined, Ms. Herbe’s supervisor began to harass her by making comments about her being “a mole”, meeting with Ms. Herbe’s team without her, asking them for “dirt on her”, changing the reporting requirements that Ms. Herbe had put in place for her team, yelling at her in front of new employees and generally trying to undermine her authority. The supervisor also wrote her up for leaving work early and other infractions that Ms. Herbe claims never occurred. Ms. Herbe also began receiving poor performance evaluations for the first time in her four years working at Rutgers.

BARDA Doctor’s Whistleblower Complaint Brings Conscientious Employee Protections into the Covid-19 Discussion

May 30, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

Many of us have heard of employee whistleblowers who go public with their employer’s egregious wrongdoings and suffer job loss or other retaliation for doing so. Both the federal government and the State of New Jersey offer protections to these conscientious employees. For example, a federal law called the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 protects employees who disclose evidence of illegal or improper governmental activities. In New Jersey, we have enacted the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, which is viewed as one of the furthest reaching whistleblower laws in the country. Whistleblower laws such as these were enacted to assure that employees have protections when they do the right thing and oppose unlawful activity of their employer. We, as a society, belief that employers and the government must play within the rules to protect people from being harmed from dangerous situations that can be caused by unlawful conduct.

There is perhaps no better example of the importance that whistleblowers can play in stopping governmental behavior that can cause harm to people than the allegations that Dr. Rick Bright has made against the government concerning its COVID-19 response. Dr. Bright was recently ousted from his prominent position as Director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for what he alleges was in retaliation for disclosing certain violations of law, gross mismanagement and waste of funds, abuse of authority and substantial and specific danger to public health and safety of the government in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Dr. Rick Bright recently began making headlines when he went public with his Complaint alleging Whistleblower Retaliation filed with the United States Office of Special Counsel. In the lengthy filing, Dr. Bright alleges that he was fired from his position within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after he refused to spend money on unproven and potentially dangerous drugs that the White House was touting as promising treatments for Covid-19, and he resisted pressure to put in place a national program geared toward expanding public access to those drugs.

Can an Employee be Terminated for Reporting Violations of New Jersey’s COVID-19 Executive Order 107?

March 25, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

An employee may have a claim for whistle-blower retaliation under New Jersey state law if their employer takes adverse employment action against him or her for complaining directly to the employer or or reporting violations of New Jersey Executive Order 107 to a governmental agency. Executive Order 107 was signed by Governor Murphy on March 21, 2020 in furtherance of concerted efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19. Since its passing, there have been many news stories of New Jersey employees reporting that employers are conducting business as usual and in violation of their legal obligations under Executive Order 107. Employers who retaliate against their employees for “blowing-the-whistle” on violations of Executive Order 107 may also find themselves subjected to liability under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

The New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act is considered one of the furthest reaching anti-whistleblower statutes in the country. New Jersey’s whistle-blower protection law makes it unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment action (including, but not limited, to termination) against an employee for engaging in protected activity that is covered by the statute. There are many forms of protected activity recognized under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34-19-3. For example, an employee who discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or public body practices or acts of the employer that he or she reasonably believes to be in violation of a law, rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to the law is engaging in protected activity under the statute. Protected activity can also include objecting to or refusing to participate in any activity, policy or practice that the employee reasonably believes is “incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare or protection of the environment.” N.J.S.A. 34-19-3(c)(3).

The clear stated purpose of Executive Order 107 is to limit the spread and mitigate the impact of COVID-19. In order accomplish the objections of the executive order, Governor Murphy ordered specific directives upon employers concerning how they must conduct their business operations during the coronavirus pandemic. Among other things, Executive Order 107 directs the temporary closure of non-essential retail businesses. It also mandates non-retail businesses to accommodate their workforce for telework or work-from-home arrangements. The term “telework” is defined in the order as “the practice of working from home or alternative locations closer to home through the use of technology that equips the individual to access necessary materials.” The order further states that in situations in which employees cannot perform their job functions via telework or work-from home arrangements, the employer should make best efforts to reduce staff on-site to the minimal number of workers necessary to ensure the continuation of essential business operations.

Revisiting Battaglia v. UPS: New Jersey Employment Retaliation Law

February 27, 2020 | Smith Eibeler LLC

An employee is protected from retaliation from his or her employer when he or she engages in protected activity under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. But what constitutes protected activity? Is any complaint covered? Or does the employee complaint have to one that the complained of conduct violate the law? The Supreme Court of New Jersey answered these questions concerning the standard in a 2013 decision in the case of Battaglia v. United Parcel Service Inc., in holding that an employee engages in protected activity when employee’s complaint is reasonable and made with a good faith belief that the complained of conduct violates the LAD.

The Battaglia decision involved a case of sexual harassment retaliation. Michael Battaglia had been employed with UPS since 1985, when he began as a driver and worked his way up the ranks. In 2001, Battaglia became the division manager of UPS’s South Division and he began supervising Wayne DeCraine. During this time, Battaglia became aware of DeCraine’s derogatory remarks about women, including sexually inappropriate comments about female employees at UPS. Battaglia took steps at that time, in accordance with UPS policy, to address DeCraine’s conduct and behavior. For unrelated reasons, thereafter, Battaglia was moved through several other departments at UPS and ultimately in 2004, returned to working with DeCraine – now with DeCraine supervising Battaglia as a division manager.

After some time, DeCraine began making what Plaintiff perceived to be a series of inappropriate sexual comments. While the comments were only made in the presence of male employees, the comments were about other female employees. Battaglia asserts that he spoke with DeCraine each time he made a comment and further met with their supervisor who had also heard these remarks.

Federal Court Rules HR Director Inquiries into a Workplace Investigation as Protected Speech under First Amendment

October 25, 2019 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a public employee who alleges she was terminated by her public employer for inquiring into a complaint that she had been illegally recorded during a conversation with a union leader. In reversing the district court’s decision, the court reinforced the separation of a public employee’s speech in their capacity as a private citizen in comparison to what they say in their capacity as a public employee. This case is a reminder that public employees do not waive their First Amendment rights by accepting public employment and have job protections when they engage in protected activity under the United States Constitution.

In this case entitled Javitz v. County of Lucerne, the plaintiff, Donna Javitz’s was employed as the director of human resources for Lucerne County. During her employment, Ms. Javitz’s alleges that she made a report to the district attorney that she had allegedly been illegally recorded when she met a union leader in her official capacity. The county manager told Javitz and the district attorney to drop the matter, but Javitz followed up with questions on the status of the investigation regarding the recording. Suddenly, her relationship with her employer became rocky and Javitz was abruptly terminated. Javitz claimed that her termination was in retaliation for reporting the alleged illegal recording to the district attorney.

The county employer alleged that Javitz had been working within her capacity as a public employee when she was inquiring about the status of the investigation and therefore no First Amendment violation existed. The district court agreed and cited to the Lucerne County Code of Ethics as the source by which it found her conduct in reporting the illegal activity to be within her official capacity as a county employee. Because the action was within her duties as an employee, the District Court concluded that the report did not qualify as speech protected by the First Amendment.

New Jersey Court Strikes Punitive Damage Bar in Employment Arbitration Agreement

September 7, 2018 | Smith Eibeler LLC

The New Jersey Appellate Division has reversed a trial court’s determination that barred an employee from pursuing punitive damages in an arbitration proceeding. While reversing the trial court’s determination concerning the issue of punitive damages, the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit by holding that the plaintiff knowingly agreed to arbitrate her sexual harassment claims by waiving her right to a jury trial as set forth in the employment agreement. As a result, the employee will now pursue her sexual harassment claims in a private arbitration, but will be permitted to pursue her claims for punitive damages in the arbitration proceedings.

In the case of Milagros Roman v. Bergen Logistics, LLC,the employee, Ms. Roman, alleges that she experienced sexual harassment during her employment with Bergen Logistics. Roman began her employment as a human resource generalist in 2015. In April, 2017, Roman alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment from her immediate supervisor and was terminated form her employment in retaliation for rebuffing the sexual advances. Roman subsequently filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey for claims sexual harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The employer responded by filing a motion to dismiss and to compel Roman to bring her claims in a private arbitration proceeding based upon an employment agreement that she signed in which she waived her right to a jury trial. The employment agreement also included a provision that barred Roman from pursuing punitive damages in any action against the employer. Specifically, the agreement read the employee and the employer agreed not to “file or maintain any lawsuit, action or legal proceeding of any nature with respect to any dispute, controversy or claim within the scope of [the] Agreement,” and that “BY SIGNING [THE] AGREEMENT [PLAINTIFF] AND THE COMPANY ARE WAIVING ANY RIGHT, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE TO A TRIAL BY JURY.” The trial court granted the employer’s motion and dismissed Roman’s claim and also found that the arbitration agreement’s clause that waived Roman’s right to pursue punitive damages as enforceable.