background image
W I N T E R 2 0 1 4
29
employment action was taken against him
or her; and (4) a causal connection exists
between the whistle-blowing activity and
the adverse employment action.
9
In cases
involving licensed or certified health care
employees, plaintiff must show that it is
more likely than not that he/she reasonably
believed that the alleged wrongful activity,
policy or practice about which the plaintiff
"blew the whistle" constituted improper
quality of patient care."
10
CEPA only requires an employee's
"reasonable belief" that the employer was
violating the law.
11
The employee's suspi-
cion that the employer is violating the law
does not need to turn out to be true.
Legal Standard
Some recent cases have clarified the requi-
site standard for retaliation claims brought
under Title VII, CEPA and the LAD. In
University of Texas Southwestern Medi-
cal Center v. Nassar
,
12
the United States
Supreme Court was asked to define the
proper standard of causation for Title VII
retaliation claims. The Court noted that
Title VII provided for two types of employ-
ment claims. The first is what the Court
terms "status-based discrimination," which
includes prohibitions against employer
discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex or national origin in the work-
place. The second is employer retaliation
on account of an employee having op-
posed, complained of, or sought remedies
for, unlawful workplace discrimination. For
discrimination claims, claimants only need
to show that the motive to discriminate
was one of the employer's motives, even
if the employer also had other, lawful mo-
tives that were causative in the employer's
decision. However, since Title VII's anti-
retaliation provision appears in a different
section of the statute, courts were unclear
whether the legal standard for discrimina-
tion cases applied in retaliation cases.
In resolving this question, the majority
of the Supreme Court held that Title VII
retaliation claims must be proved accord-
ing to traditional principles of but-for
causation. The Court rejected the lower
standard of proof which required employ-
ees only to prove that the employer had a
mixed motive, making it more difficult for
employees to prove retaliation claims.
On July 17, 2013, shortly after the
Supreme Court decision in Nassar, the
New Jersey Supreme Court addressed
retaliation and came down on the opposite
side under the LAD and CEPA. The case,
Battaglia v. United Parcel Service, Inc.,
13
arose from an employee's claims that he
was retaliated against for complaining to a
supervisor about co-worker and supervisor
misconduct and for making an anonymous
complaint to the corporate HR Manager.
The plaintiff-employee alleged, among
other things, a retaliation claim under the
LAD and under CEPA.
The Court ruled that a cause of action
alleging retaliation under the LAD only
requires the complaining employee's good
faith belief that the unlawful conduct oc-
curred, not an actual violation. An identifi-
able victim of actual discrimination is not
required.
The Court also briefly discussed
CEPA's waiver provisions, urging trial
courts to be careful to prevent plaintiffs
from bringing parallel claims under two or
more statutes. Under CEPA's waiver provi-
sion, a plaintiff cannot maintain claims
under both CEPA and another statute
where the protected activity is the same.
Prevention of Retaliation Claims
To reduce the likelihood that an employee
will have grounds to assert a retaliation
claim, employers should create a work-
ing environment in which employees feel
they can alert management to potential
problems and participate in investigations
without fear of retaliation. There are many
steps employers should take to reduce the
risk of retaliation claims and make claims
easier to defend:
· Establish a policy against retaliation.
Employers should have a strong policy
against retaliation making it clear that
retaliation will not be tolerated. The
policy should encourage employees to
come forward with complaints of unlaw-
ful conduct without fear of retaliation.
· Provide employee training.
Employers
should provide training on what types
of conduct constitute retaliation and
how to respond when a complaint is
brought to their attention.
· Communicate with the complaining
employee.
Employers should refer the
employee to anti-retaliation policies
and explain to the employee that any
hostile or negative treatment should
be reported.
· Keep complaints confidential.
The
fewer people who know about a
complaint, the smaller the chances are
that someone will retaliate against the
employee.
· Consider taking protective measures.
Employers should consider allowing
the claimant to report to a different
supervisor or provide an alternative
work schedule so as to reduce the risk
of retaliation. Employers should be
careful to ensure that any changes do
not appear to be retaliatory.
· Document everything.
Document the
steps you take to prevent retaliation
and to address it when you receive a
complaint.
1 N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(d),
2 Id.
3 See Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555 (2010).
4 Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623,
629-30 (1995); Romano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp.
, 284 N.J.Super. 543, 548-49 (App.Div. 1995).
5 Kolb v. Burns, 320 N.J. Super. 467, 479 (App. Div.
1999) (holding burden on plaintiff is to show "retaliatory
discrimination was more likely than not a determinative
factor in the decision").
6 See Nardello v. Twp. of Voorhees, 377 N.J. Super. 428,
433-436 (App. Div. 2005); Green v. Jersey City Bd. of
Educ.
, 177 N.J. 434, 448 (2003).
7 Carmona v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, 189 N.J. 354,
372-73 (2007).
8 N.J.S.A. 34:19-3.
9 Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451 (2003)
10 N.J.S.A. 34:19-3.
11 Dzwonar, 177 N.J. at 462-64 (holding that CEPA "does
not require a plaintiff to show that a law, rule, regulation
or clear mandate of public policy actually would be
violated if all the facts he or she alleges are true [; i]
nstead, a plaintiff must set forth facts that would support
an objectively reasonable belief that a violation has
occurred ... [and] the jury then must determine whether
the plaintiff actually held such a belief and, if so,
whether that belief was objectively reasonable").
12 133 S. Ct. 2517 (2013)
13 2013 N.J. LEXIS 734 (N.J. July 17, 2013)