The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently held that a plaintiff who reports conduct as part of his or her job is entitled to the whistle-blowing protections afforded under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).
As further detailed in a prior post, plaintiff Joel S. Lippman, M.D. alleged that his former employer, defendant Ethicon, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Inc., violated CEPA. He specifically alleged that he was terminated from his position as the vice president of medical affairs because he consistently advocated positions that favored the recall of products that, in his professional opinion, were dangerous to the public.
In defense of the whistleblower suit, Ethicon maintained that Lippman was terminated because he had an inappropriate relationship with someone who worked directly for him. It further argued that Lippman’s conduct did not constitute whistleblowing under CEPA because it was part of his job-related duties.
While the trial court dismissed the suit, the Appellate Division reversed. In ruling that so-called “watchdog” employees like Lippman should not fall outside of CEPA’s protections, the appeals court noted that such employees are the “most vulnerable to retaliation because they are uniquely positioned to know where the problem areas are and to speak out when corporate profits are put ahead of consumer safety.”
The Court’s Decision
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, largely agreeing with the Appellate Division’s reasoning. As Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote for the unanimous court:
There is no support in [the Conscientious Employee Protection Act’s] language, construction or application in this court’s case law that supports that watchdog employees are stripped of whistleblower protection as a result of their position or because they are performing their regular job duties.
The New Jersey Supreme Court did find fault with one aspect of the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the appeals court erroneously applied a heightened burden of proof for watchdog employees pursuing CEPA claims. According to the court, the requirement is “nowhere found in the statutory language.”
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One
For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know
Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split
Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Guardianships in New Jersey: When a Loved One Can No Longer Manage Personal or Financial Affairs
When a family member can no longer make important decisions for themself, the question is often not whether the family will step in, but whether they have the legal authority to do so. A spouse may manage household finances, or an adult child may arrange medical care and pay bills. Still, informal assistance does not […]
New Jersey’s Revised UHAC Regulations: What Residential Developers Need to Know About Affordable Housing Commitments
New Jersey residential developers with affordable housing obligations should carefully review their existing approvals, development agreements, and proposed deed restrictions in light of the State’s revised UHAC regulations (Uniform Housing Affordability Controls). The regulations, which took effect on November 6, 2025, significantly change the administration and physical requirements for affordable housing units. For developers with […]
“No Comment” Culture: Why Silence Is Often the Riskiest Legal Strategy
A “no comment” response is sometimes the right call when a legal problem arises. As a blanket policy, however, it lets allegations go unanswered, deadlines pass, evidence disappear, and manageable disputes grow into expensive litigation. The businesses that fare best are usually the ones that say little publicly while acting decisively behind the scenes. When […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
