The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently agreed to consider Lippman v. Ethicon. The issue before the court is whether 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).
Plaintiff Joel S. Lippman, M.D. filed a complaint against his former employer, defendant Ethicon, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Inc., for CEPA violations. 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 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 acts did not constitute whistle-blowing activities under CEPA because they were part of his job-related duties.
The Appellate Division Decision
The Appellate Division overturned the trial court’s dismissal of the whistleblower suit. In so ruling, it rejected the lower court’s ruling that Lippman “failed to show that he performed a whistle-blowing activity” because it was part of his job description.
“In our view, it would be a sad irony indeed if such a ‘watchdog’ employee, like plaintiff, would be deemed by a court to fall outside the wall of protection created by the Legislature to whistleblowers. If an individual’s job is to protect the public from exposure to dangerous defective medical products, CEPA does not permit the employer to retaliate against that individual because of his or her performance of duties in good faith, and consistent with the job description,” the Appellate Division explained.
The court further noted that so-called “watchdog” employees like Lippman 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 Issues on Appeal
While the appeals court ruled in favor of Lippman, other panels have ruled otherwise. In Massarano v. N.J. Transit, the Appellate Division ruled that a plaintiff was not entitled to whistleblower protection after reporting that key documents were thrown away in a dumpster, finding that she was just “doing her job as the security operations manager by reporting her findings and her opinion…” On the basis of this 2008 precedential decision, New Jersey courts have rejected similar CEPA claims. To resolve the conflict, the state Supreme Court must now decide whether watchdogs can be whistleblowers under CEPA.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss New Jersey’s whistleblower laws, please contact me, Joel Kreizman, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
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.
NJ Supreme Court to Decide Extent of CEPA Whistleblower Protections
Author: Joel N. Kreizman
The Facts of the Case
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently agreed to consider Lippman v. Ethicon. The issue before the court is whether 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).
Plaintiff Joel S. Lippman, M.D. filed a complaint against his former employer, defendant Ethicon, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Inc., for CEPA violations. 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 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 acts did not constitute whistle-blowing activities under CEPA because they were part of his job-related duties.
The Appellate Division Decision
The Appellate Division overturned the trial court’s dismissal of the whistleblower suit. In so ruling, it rejected the lower court’s ruling that Lippman “failed to show that he performed a whistle-blowing activity” because it was part of his job description.
“In our view, it would be a sad irony indeed if such a ‘watchdog’ employee, like plaintiff, would be deemed by a court to fall outside the wall of protection created by the Legislature to whistleblowers. If an individual’s job is to protect the public from exposure to dangerous defective medical products, CEPA does not permit the employer to retaliate against that individual because of his or her performance of duties in good faith, and consistent with the job description,” the Appellate Division explained.
The court further noted that so-called “watchdog” employees like Lippman 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 Issues on Appeal
While the appeals court ruled in favor of Lippman, other panels have ruled otherwise. In Massarano v. N.J. Transit, the Appellate Division ruled that a plaintiff was not entitled to whistleblower protection after reporting that key documents were thrown away in a dumpster, finding that she was just “doing her job as the security operations manager by reporting her findings and her opinion…” On the basis of this 2008 precedential decision, New Jersey courts have rejected similar CEPA claims. To resolve the conflict, the state Supreme Court must now decide whether watchdogs can be whistleblowers under CEPA.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss New Jersey’s whistleblower laws, please contact me, Joel Kreizman, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
