You be the Judge: Whistleblower

New Jersey enacted the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) to protect employees from retaliation when they complain to their employers about practices which are incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy.

The Supreme Court recently reviewed a case involving a city police officer assigned to investigate prostitution offenses.  He complained when restrictions were placed on his ability to initiate new investigations.  The city allegedly had a policy of not enforcing the criminal law against sexually oriented businesses within 1,000 feet of a school or a church.  Shortly thereafter, he was assigned to foot patrol where his compensation was less.

He brought suit under CEPA but the trial court granted a summary judgment to the city, without a trial.  The trial judge found the city had a right to recognize budgetary constraints and assign officers to more serious crimes; plaintiff's disagreement with the allocation of police resources did not satisfy the criteria for CEPA relief.

YOU BE THE JUDGE: Is a whistleblower without protection if his complaint turns out to be wrong?

The Supreme Court disagreed with the trial judge. 

The Supreme Court found any claimant under CEPA need only show that he had an objectively reasonable belief that his employer's conduct was incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy dealing with public health, safety or welfare. 

In this case there was no evidence that plaintiff knew the city's alleged policy was motivated by budgetary constraints. 

Therefore, a jury could find plaintiff was objectively reasonable in his belief that his employer's apparent policy was incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy to enforce the criminal laws.