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.”
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
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.
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.”
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
