retaliation claim in New Jersey

2025On the other hand, the prima facie elements of a retaliation claim under the LAD requires plaintiff to demonstrate that: (1) plaintiff was in a protected class; (2) plaintiff engaged in protected activity known to the employer; (3) plaintiff was thereafter subjected to an adverse employment consequence; and (4) that there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment consequence. [Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383, 409 (2010) (citing Woods-Pirozzi v. Nabisco Foods, 290 N.J.

2019After dismissing plaintiff's discriminatory discharge claims, the motion judge determined he did not need to "elaborate further on [his] reasons for granting summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim." Since there are multiple issues of fact for a jury to determine regarding the potentially discriminatory discharge, and those issues directly relate to a prima facie retaliation A-0494-18T4 31 claim, we discern no basis in the record for the dismissal of plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim. [T]he prima facie elements of a retaliation claim under the LAD requires plaintiff t

2025On the other hand, the prima facie elements of a retaliation claim under the LAD requires plaintiff to demonstrate that: (1) plaintiff was in a protected class; (2) plaintiff engaged in protected activity known to the employer; (3) plaintiff was thereafter subjected to an adverse employment consequence; and (4) that there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment consequence. [Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383, 409 (2010) (citing Woods-Pirozzi v. Nabisco Foods, 290 N.J.

2024It is sufficient that the plaintiff is able to "demonstrate to the court that plaintiff's factual scenario is compatible with discriminatory intent – i.e., that discrimination could be a reason for the employer's action." Ibid. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Marzano, 91 F.3d at 508). [T]he prima facie elements of a retaliation claim under the LAD requires plaintiff to demonstrate that: (1) plaintiff was in a protected class; (2) plaintiff engaged in protected activity known to the employer; (3) plaintiff was thereafter subjected to an adverse employment consequence; and (4) that there is a causal

2025To establish a prima facie case for a retaliation claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that: (1) [he or she] engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter [his or her] employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) [the] participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation." Ibid. (quoting Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 (1995)); see also Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 214 N.J. 518, 547 (2013).

2021To establish a prima facie case for a retaliation claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that: (1) [he or she] engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter [his or her] employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) [the] participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation." Ibid. (quoting Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 (1995)); see also Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 214 N.J. 518, 547 (2013).

2025To establish a prima facie case for a retaliation claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that: (1) [he or she] engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter [his or her] employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) [the] participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation." Ibid. (quoting Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 (1995)); see also Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 214 N.J. 518, 547 (2013).

2021To establish a prima facie case for a retaliation claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that: (1) [he or she] engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter [his or her] employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) [the] participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation." Ibid. (quoting Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 (1995)); see also Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 214 N.J. 518, 547 (2013).

2025To establish a prima facie case for a retaliation claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that: (1) [he or she] engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter [his or her] employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) [the] participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation." Ibid. (quoting Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 (1995)); see also Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 214 N.J. 518, 547 (2013).

2021To establish a prima facie case for a retaliation claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must "demonstrate that: (1) [he or she] engaged in a protected activity known by the employer; (2) thereafter [his or her] employer unlawfully retaliated against them; and (3) [the] participation in the protected activity caused the retaliation." Ibid. (quoting Craig v. Suburban Cablevision, Inc., 140 N.J. 623, 629-30 (1995)); see also Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 214 N.J. 518, 547 (2013).

2019In Winters, our Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who unsuccessfully argued retaliation as a defense in a disciplinary proceeding was collaterally estopped from thereafter bringing a retaliation claim under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14. 212 N.J. at 92 .

2019In reaching that conclusion, the Court explained that "[a] litigant should not be permitted to participate in the administrative system designed to promote a fair and uniform statewide system of public employee discipline, raise a retaliation defense . . . , and then hold back on the defense in an attempt to save it for later duplicative litigation." Id. at 72 (citation omitted).

2020The trial court rejected the defendant's argument; the plaintiff prevailed on the retaliation claim at trial; and we affirmed, refusing to import a "qualification[]"—that a plaintiff prove he or she had a good faith belief in the underlying complaint—that was "not established in the statute." Id. at 367 (quoting Carmona v. Resorts Int'l Hotel, Inc., No. A-5814-03 (App. Div. Oct. 25, 2005) (slip op. at 4)).

2020On appeal, our Supreme Court considered whether "as a condition precedent to a retaliation claim under the LAD, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving that his or her initial complaint that triggered the later claimed retaliation was filed reasonably and in good faith in the first instance." Id. at 369 (emphasis added).

2024It is sufficient that the plaintiff is able to "demonstrate to the court that plaintiff's factual scenario is compatible with discriminatory intent – i.e., that discrimination could be a reason for the employer's action." Ibid. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Marzano, 91 F.3d at 508). [T]he prima facie elements of a retaliation claim under the LAD requires plaintiff to demonstrate that: (1) plaintiff was in a protected class; (2) plaintiff engaged in protected activity known to the employer; (3) plaintiff was thereafter subjected to an adverse employment consequence; and (4) that there is a causal

2018In evaluating a retaliation claim under the LAD, the Court has followed the United States Supreme Court's burden-shifting analysis delineated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 802–04 (1973).

2025Dept. of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320, 332 (2010) (quoting Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc., 197 N.J. 81, 125 (2008)).

2025Donofry v. Autotote Sys., Inc., 350 N.J.

2021See Kolb, 320 N.J.

2021To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show "(1) [plaintiff] engaged in protected activity; (2) the activity was known to the employer; (3) plaintiff suffered an adverse employment decision; and (4) there existed a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action." Young v. Hobart West Grp., 385 N.J.

2019See Wolff, 439 N.J.

2016Id. at 1229.

2010In addressing the question of “how harmful an act of retaliatory discrimination must be in order to fall within the provision’s scope,” the Court held that “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, ‘which in this context means it well might have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” ’ ” Burlington, supra, 548 U.S. at 61, 68 , 126 S.Ct. at 2411, 2415 , 165 L.Ed. 2d at 355 , 359 (quoting Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting Washington v. Ill.

2010In addressing the question of “how harmful an act of retaliatory discrimination must be in order to fall within the provision’s scope,” the Court held that “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, ‘which in this context means it well might have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” ’ ” Burlington, supra, 548 U.S. at 61, 68 , 126 S.Ct. at 2411, 2415 , 165 L.Ed. 2d at 355 , 359 (quoting Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting Washington v. Ill.

2010In addressing the question of “how harmful an act of retaliatory discrimination must be in order to fall within the provision’s scope,” the Court held that “a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, ‘which in this context means it well might have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” ’ ” Burlington, supra, 548 U.S. at 61, 68 , 126 S.Ct. at 2411, 2415 , 165 L.Ed. 2d at 355 , 359 (quoting Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting Washington v. Ill.

2010Id. at 569-70 , 985 A.2d 1225 ; Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 453 (7th Cir.1990) (equitable tolling and discovery rule not applicable in Age Discrimination in Employment Act case where plaintiff did not exercise “due diligence” by investigating or pursuing remedies before statute of limitations ran), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1261 , 111 S.Ct. 2916 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1079 (1991).

2010Id. at 569-70 , 985 A. 2d 1225 ; Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 453 (7th Cir.1990) (equitable tolling and discovery rule not applicable in Age Discrimination in Employment Act case where plaintiff did not exercise "due diligence" by investigating or pursuing remedies before statute of limitations ran), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1261 , 111 S.Ct. 2916 , 115 L.Ed. 2d 1079 (1991).

2010The Appellate Division began its analysis by observing that not all activities taken by employees in furtherance of a claim of discrimination are protected, id. at 205 , 976 A. 2d 429 (citing Carmona v. Resorts Int'l Hotel, Inc., 189 N.J. 354, 373 , 915 A. 2d 518 (2007)), and that no New Jersey decision has considered whether taking confidential documents from an employer is a protected activity, id. at 205 & n. 3, 976 A. 2d 429 .

2010The Appellate Division began its analysis by observing that not all activities taken by employees in furtherance of a claim of discrimination are protected, id. at 205 , 976 A. 2d 429 (citing Carmona v. Resorts Int'l Hotel, Inc., 189 N.J. 354, 373 , 915 A. 2d 518 (2007)), and that no New Jersey decision has considered whether taking confidential documents from an employer is a protected activity, id. at 205 & n. 3, 976 A. 2d 429 .

2007In doing so, we follow parallel federal precedents, under which a plaintiff must show that “he had a reasonable, good-faith belief that discrimination occurred to prevail on a retaliation claim[,]” Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 187 , 125 S.Ct. 1497, 1512 , 161 L.Ed.2d 361, 380 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting), a tenet universally observed by every United States Court of Appeals that has considered the question.

2007In doing so, we follow parallel federal precedents, under which a plaintiff must show that “he had a reasonable, good-faith belief that discrimination occurred to prevail on a retaliation claim[,]” Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 187 , 125 S.Ct. 1497, 1512 , 161 L.Ed.2d 361, 380 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting), a tenet universally observed by every United States Court of Appeals that has considered the question.