Legal Alert: New Jersey Supreme Court Eases Employee Retaliation Claims

by FordHarrison

Executive Summary: Right after the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions favoring employers in a variety of employee lawsuits based on federal statutes, including retaliation under Title VII, the New Jersey Supreme Court has moved that state in the opposite direction under its corresponding statutes, in Battaglia v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No.A-86/87-11 (N.J. Supreme Court, July 17, 2013). Employers who do business in New Jersey should take note.

First, the bad news for New Jersey employers:

  • Under New Jersey law, an employee who complains about perceived unlawful workplace conduct, and who then experiences an adverse employment action because of the complaint, can prevail in a retaliation suit even if the employee was incorrect about the conduct being illegal, as long as the employee had a good-faith belief that it was.
  • An employer's inadequate response to an employee's whistleblowing can be construed as evidence, albeit indirect, of a causal connection between the employee's complaint (protected activity) and the employer's action against the employee.

But there is some good news from the same opinion:

  • An employee who blows the whistle on workplace misconduct must be specific about the complained-of activity. Vague or generalized complaints, or complaints about minor matters, don't suffice to hold the employer liable for retaliation.
  • Under CEPA's waiver provision, a plaintiff cannot simultaneously sue under CEPA and another statute if the protected activity is the same.
  • A LAD plaintiff may only recover damages for future emotional distress if an expert opinion supplies proof of permanency.
  • To succeed on a fraud-based CEPA claim, an employee must have reasonably believed the activity complained of was occurring and was fraudulent.


Battaglia, a male UPS manager and long-time employee, heard his male supervisor and several high-level male managers, when talking among themselves, use vulgar, sexist language in referring to female employees. No such comments were made in the presence of any female employees, however, and there was no proof of a actual discrimination against women or other evidence of a hostile work environment. Battaglia alleged that he complained to his supervisor about these comments, but that the misconduct continued. Also, after observing his supervisor flirt with a female manager, Battaglia advised the supervisor to be careful as there was a rumor circulating that the two were having an affair.

Battaglia also complained to his supervisor about other managers possibly misusing company credit cards and taking "liquid lunches" and not returning to work afterward, though he admittedly did not believe the conduct in question was fraudulent. Battaglia then sent HR an anonymous email containing non-specific allegations of improper language and unethical behavior.

UPS investigated Battaglia's complaint, but said it had difficulty knowing how to investigate the vague allegations in the anonymous email. In the meantime, UPS disciplined and demoted Battaglia because, according to UPS, of some poor workplace behavior unrelated to his complaints. He missed five months of work, which he attributed to depression he suffered due to his demotion.

Battaglia alleged that he was demoted in retaliation for his complaints, and that the investigation was a sham which his managers set up. He sued on several grounds, among them UPS's alleged violation of two New Jersey statutes, the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), which roughly parallels federal Title VII, and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), which protects whistleblowers in the workplace. After a lengthy trial, a jury returned a verdict on Battaglia's favor on both counts, awarding damages for economic loss as well as emotional distress. The intermediate appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Both parties appealed to the state Supreme Court, which upheld the jury's LAD verdict for the plaintiff but reversed the CEPA verdict.

Court Rulings

1. A retaliation cause of action under LAD only requires the complaining employee's good faith belief that the unlawful conduct  occurred, not an actual violation.

To recover for retaliation under LAD, a New Jersey employee need only show that he or she had a "good faith belief" that the conduct the employee complained about violated the law. There need not have been actual discrimination against an identifiable victim. The New Jersey Supreme Court so held, reversing the appellate court.

The Court cautioned that its holding was not intended to create a civility code—though its holding arguably pushes in that direction—and stressed that in this particular case, underlying facts reflected a supervisor's reoccurring statements to his subordinates, as opposed to, for example, a single comment by a manager or conversations among co-workers.

The Court declined to establish a bright-line test or objective criteria for employers to follow, creating fertile ground for future litigation over what constitutes an employee's "good faith belief." The Court did offer one ray of hope for employers, hinting that the result in this case could have been different if UPS had investigated Battaglia's complaints more thoroughly.

2. A whistleblower must be specific about the conduct complained of, but when it is, the employer must conduct an adequate investigation.

Employers will be glad to hear that employees cannot claim to be whistleblowers on the basis of generalized accusations. Instead, they must describe the misconduct with "care and precision." CEPA does not protect "vague and conclusory complaints, complaints about trivial or minor matters, or generalized workplace unhappiness." Battaglia's anonymous letter made no references to credit cards or business lunches, and his oral complaint was too vague to include these activities.

Again, though, the Court stated that analysis of a fraud-based CEPA claim should focus on the employee's good-faith belief that the complained-of conduct was occurring and was fraudulent, not whether the conduct was actually occurring or whether it met the legal definition of fraud. In doing so, the Court may be signaling a move away from an objective standard to a more subjective standard in analyzing whistleblowing activity.

The Court also discussed the employer's response to whistleblowing, noting that an inadequate or cursory response by the employer could be construed as indirect evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and retaliation. An inadequate investigation could be evidence that the employer ratified the retaliatory action, or was somehow complicit.

3. Proof of damages for present and future emotional distress differs.

Under LAD, emotional distress damages are easier to recover than under general tort law. Lay testimony suffices for an employee to recover damages for emotional distress arising from humiliation, embarrassment, or indignity. In determining the amount of such damages, trial courts should focus on the conduct of the harasser and not on the extent of the plaintiff's injury, according to the state's high court.

But to recover damages for future emotional distress, expert proof of permanency is required. In this case, held the Supreme Court, where there was no such expert proof, the trial court inappropriately allowed the jury to speculate regarding future emotional damages, by allowing the jury to consider Battaglia's age and life expectancy.

4. Plaintiffs cannot recover for the same misconduct under two different statutes.

Finally, the Court 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 provision, a plaintiff cannot maintain claims under both CEPA and another statute where the protected activity is the same. For example, CEPA's waiver provision would presumably prevent Battaglia from asserting a LAD retaliation claim based on his objection to his manager's derogatory comments about women while maintaining a CEPA claim based on the same facts. The Court noted that no harm occurred here because Battaglia sought only one recovery for his CEPA claims and his LAD claims.

Employers' Bottom Line:

  1. Make sure there is a mechanism in place for employees to file complaints of workplace misconduct; that the mechanism is in writing and is distributed and available to all employees; and that those who receive such complaints are well trained in standard protocols for investigating them.
  2. Take employee complaints of unlawful conduct seriously. If an investigation is warranted, do a thorough one, document it, and share findings with the employee.
  3. Train employees, especially those with supervisory and management responsibilities, that no workplace conversation should include derogatory comments relating to race, gender, age, or any protected categories, and implement and enforce rules to prevent such comments.
  4. Counsel should apprise New Jersey trial judges that a jury charge on whistleblowing must specifically identify the complaint that constituted whistleblowing, and should make sure that juries are not permitted to award duplicate damages under separate statutes.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© FordHarrison | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


FordHarrison on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.