New Jersey Court Rules Individual Can Be Criminally Prosecuted for Taking Confidential Information to Support Civil Whistleblower Claims

by Littler
Contact

In 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court created a qualified privilege for an employee taking documents to support an employment discrimination suit.1  However, this past December, in State of New Jersey v. Ivonne Saavedra,2 the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, ruled that the qualified privilege should not be applied to protect a criminal defendant from a grand jury indictment for “official misconduct” for having taken those documents to support a retaliatory discharge claim.

Procedural History

In November 2009, the defendant and her son filed a civil complaint against the North Bergen Board of Education (the Board) for employment discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliatory discharge in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (the LAD).3  During discovery in the civil action, the defendant produced 367 documents which she had taken from the Board.  The Board then informed the County Prosecutor.

In May 2012, a grand jury indicted the defendant for the crimes of theft and official misconduct.  She moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that the New Jersey Supreme “says it’s legal to take confidential documents.”  The trial court disagreed, but still performed the qualified privilege analysis outlined by the New Jersey Supreme Court out of an abundance of caution.  The court found that, even under that rubric, the motion to dismiss failed.

Appeals Division’s Analysis

The Appeals Division affirmed the trial court’s analysis, ruling that the qualified privilege did not insulate the defendant from criminal prosecution for taking confidential documents.  The court also affirmed the finding that the State made a prima facie showing of theft and official misconduct.

The grand jury’s indictment was based on the defendant’s possession of 367 documents which belonged to the Board.  Among those documents were a bank statement provided to the Board by a parent, an appointment schedule of a psychiatrist who treated students with special needs, a consent for release of information to access Medicaid reimbursement, a signed letter from a parent whose child received confidential services for special needs, and an original letter about a child’s emotional problem.  The Board’s General Counsel testified that employees were trained to be aware that these documents were highly confidential and should not be taken.

The court began its analysis by examining the theft charge.  In New Jersey, “[a] person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof.”4  The court found that, since taking the documents was against the Board’s internal policies, the defendant likely took the documents with the purpose to deprive the Board. 

The court then addressed the defendant’s qualified privilege argument.  To meet its burden of producing sufficient evidence for a prima facie case of theft, the State was required to show that the taking was unlawful.  The defendant claimed that the New Jersey Supreme Court decision rendered the taking lawful.  The Appellate Division disagreed.

In that case, the plaintiff claimed she was discriminated against when her employer promoted a man to the position of supervisor.  Her employer soon learned that she had taken confidential documents.  The court sought to strike a balance between “individual plaintiffs seeking to vindicate their rights and employers legitimately expecting that they will not be required to tolerate acts amounting to self-help or thievery.”5  The New Jersey Supreme Court designed a seven step rubric to strike this balance in civil cases. 

The court in Saavedra, rejected the argument that the qualified privilege prevents the State from introducing evidence before the grand jury that the defendant unlawfully took documents, for several reasons. 

First, the court reiterated that the New Jersey Supreme Court decision created a qualified privilege, requiring a seven-step analysis.  Therefore, an employee runs a significant risk that taking confidential documents will not fall within its protection even in a civil context.

Second, the court emphasized that such an analysis is not necessary because the Supreme Court did not intend the holding to “act as a means of mounting a facial challenge to the indictment in this criminal case.” 

Third, the State’s failure to present evidence that the documents were taken for use in the civil case was not a failure to present exculpatory evidence.  As the court determined, “[e]ven if [the New Jersey Supreme Court case] were directly on point, which it is not, ‘what the employee did with the document’ is only one factor to consider . . . .’”  Such evidence would not be “clearly exculpatory.”

The court then ruled that the State provided sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case for the second charge against the defendant, “official misconduct.” ”  A public employee commits official misconduct in New Jersey when, “[h]e commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner.”6  The charge also requires that the act be done for the purpose of obtaining the benefit for the malefactor or another. 

Critically, the court decided that the State showed that the defendant was trained and informed that the documents she took were highly confidential and should not be taken or disclosed.  This was sufficient to meet the element of an “unauthorized exercise of [her] official function.”  Further, the court found there was sufficient evidence that defendant’s purpose was to obtain a benefit for herself.  The court ruled that the “official misconduct” statute requires only an affirmative act, not malicious intent.  The advantage that taking the documents provided in the defendant’s civil suit was therefore enough to constitute a “benefit” to her.

The court also addressed the defendant’s claim that a decision would have a chilling effect on LAD claims.  The court said that it does not make policy choices about what is and what is not criminal conduct, but instead makes that determination by looking at language passed by the legislature.  In addition, there was no evidence that the documents in this case would have become unobtainable by using ordinary discovery to obtain them.  There are also safeguards in place for employees who fear that evidence will be destroyed - such as sanctions or the tort of fraudulent concealment.  In short, there was no evidence of a need for self-help. 

The dissent argued that it would be unfair to prosecute an employee who legitimately believed she had a right to take the documents in question.  The majority countered by pointing out that, to dismiss the indictment on those grounds would amount to the judiciary establishing a public policy that employees must be “categorically insulated from criminal prosecution under the theft and official misconduct statutes if they take confidential documents” to support discrimination claims.  

What This Means For Employers

The decision in State v. Saavedra expands the potential for criminal prosecution of employees who use “self-help” to obtain evidence, particularly confidential documents, to support a civil claim.  The court’s determination that the qualified privilege for an employee taking documents to support an employment discrimination suit is not applicable to a criminal indictment creates a far greater risk to employees who take employer documents.  Under Saavedra, the qualified privilege cannot be used to defend against a charge of theft.  Taking employers’ confidential material can be unlawful, even if it is for the purpose of supporting a civil claim.  Saavedra also establishes that formal training with regard to what is confidential information will help to establish that the taking is unlawful.

The court’s decision with respect to the charge of official misconduct has additional implications for public employees.  The defendant’s intent in taking the document was to support a civil action.  This was deemed to be a significant enough personal benefit to meet a prima facie showing of the “benefit” requirement for official misconduct.  Therefore, in addition to theft, public employers may have “official misconduct” as an additional avenue available to them to seek to punish public employees.


1Quinlan v. Curtiss Wright Corp., 204 N.J. 239 (N.J. 2010), 52 A.3d 209 (N.J. 2010).

2 2013 N.J. Super. LEXIS 185, No. A-1449-12, (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., December 24, 2013).

3 N.J.S.A. 10:5-1-49.

4 N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a.

5 204 N.J. 239, 245 (N.J. 2010).

6 N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2a.

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.

© Littler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Littler
Contact
more
less

Littler 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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

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.

Security

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 info@jdsupra.com. 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: info@jdsupra.com.

- 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.