You be the Judge: If you are an Employee

If you are an employee, this may interest you.

Julius was a supervisory officer at a County Juvenile Detention Center. He advanced through the employee ranks until, after ten years, he had been promoted to a supervisory position.

At a public meeting before the County Board of Freeholders, Julius testified that the Center needed metal detectors and better food. He also said more officers were needed, though he didn't say staffing was at an illegal level.

Soon thereafter, Julius claimed he was the victim of retaliation. He was docked for being 15 minutes late. He was suspended for three days for tardiness.

After a new director was appointed, Julius received another warning and filed a grievance. A month later, was docked again for being an hour late.

Julius filed a lawsuit claiming that the County had retaliated against him in violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). CEPA protects “whistle-blowers” from retaliation if they report illegal or unethical activity by their employers or co-workers.

At trial, Julius testified that his supervisor told him that “downtown” wanted him fired. The jury believed him. Julius was awarded money damages, and more than $80,000 in legal fees were assessed against the County. The County appealed.

YOU BE THE JUDGE: Was Julius the victim of retaliation when he wasn’t discharged, suspended, or demoted?

The Appellate Division pointed out that CEPA is remedial legislation and should be construed liberally. Therefore, many separate but relatively minor instances of behavior against an employee, which might not be wrongful individually, could combine to make up a pattern of retaliation.

And it was not necessary for Julius to specifically accuse the County of illegal understaffing to be a protected “whistle-blower”.

However, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment for Julius. It found that Julius should not have been permitted to tell the jury that his supervisor said “downtown” wanted him fired. This statement was “hearsay” because it was not attributed to any individual. The County had no opportunity to cross-examine the source. Since the statement was powerful, it may have influenced the jury to characterize the discipline as retaliatory.

If you would like a copy of the recent decision in Beasley v. Passaic County, A-2780-03T3, please call our office.