2. As used in this act:
a. "Employer" means any individual, partnership, association, corporation or any person or group of persons acting directly or indirectly on behalf of or in the interest of an employer with the employer's consent and shall include all branches of State Government, or the several counties and municipalities thereof, or any other political subdivision of the State, or a school district, or any special district, or any authority, commission, or board or any other agency or instrumentality thereof.
b. "Employee" means any individual who performs services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or other remuneration.
c. "Public body" means:
(1) the United States Congress, and State legislature, or any popularly-elected local governmental body, or any member or employee thereof;
(2) any federal, State, or local judiciary, or any member or employee thereof, or any grand or petit jury;
(3) any federal, State, or local regulatory, administrative, or public agency or authority, or instrumentality thereof;
(4) any federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, prosecutorial office, or police or peace officer;
(5) any federal, State or local department of an executive branch of government; or
(6) any division, board, bureau, office, committee or commission of any of the public bodies described in the above paragraphs of this subsection.
d. "Supervisor" means any individual with an employer's organization who has the authority to direct and control the work performance of the affected employee, who has authority to take corrective action regarding the violation of the law, rule or regulation of which the employee complains, or who has been designated by the employer on the notice required under section 7 of this act.
e. "Retaliatory action" means the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.
f. "Improper quality of patient care" means, with respect to patient care, any practice, procedure, action or failure to act of an employer that is a health care provider which violates any law or any rule, regulation or declaratory ruling adopted pursuant to law, or any professional code of ethics.
Notes of Decisions
Borawski v. Henderson, 265 F. Supp. 2d 475 (D.N.J. 2003).
· cites it 4× “CEPA protects employees from “retaliatory action” by an “employer” for, inter alia, “disclos[ing], or threatening] to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer ... that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law.”
Ivan v. Cnty. of Middlesex, 595 F. Supp. 2d 425 (D.N.J. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Ivan’s suspension in connection with the Smoking Incident was clearly an adverse employment action within the meaning of CEPA.”
Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2005).
· cites it 3× “The CEPA defines “retaliatory action” as “the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.”
Brennan v. Norton, 350 F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Brennan’s complaint also asserted a number of state law claims including a retaliation claim under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:19-2 . Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the district court granted summary…”
Houston v. Twp. of Randolph, 934 F. Supp. 2d 711 (D.N.J. 2013).
· cites it 2× “*743 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:19-3 . A retaliatory-action is defined as “the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.”
Bishop & Assocs., LLC v. Ameren Corp., 520 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. 2017).
“(quoting N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(b)). The court determined that, because the act was intended to be broad, remedial legislation, it must construe the term “employee” liberally.”
Nuness v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 3d 596 (D.N.J. 2016).
“” N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(e). To state a prima facie case for retaliation under the NJLAD, a plaintiff must show that she (1) engaged in protected activity, (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and…”
Figueroa v. City of Camden, 580 F. Supp. 2d 390 (D.N.J. 2008).
· cites it 2× “" N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(a). 27 .In fact, the only instance in which a union has been considered an employer for the purposes of liability under CEPA was when the aggrieved employee was in fact employed by the union.”
Sunkett v. Misci, 183 F. Supp. 2d 691 (D.N.J. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:19-2 (e) (West 2000).”
N.J. Stat. § 34:19-2(a): 18 cases
Figueroa v. City of Camden, 580 F. Supp. 2d 390 (D.N.J. 2008).
“" N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(a). 27 .In fact, the only instance in which a union has been considered an employer for the purposes of liability under CEPA was when the aggrieved employee was in fact employed by the union.”
N.J. Stat. § 34:19-2(b): 5 cases
Bishop & Assocs., LLC v. Ameren Corp., 520 S.W.3d 463 (Mo. 2017).
“(quoting N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(b)). The court determined that, because the act was intended to be broad, remedial legislation, it must construe the term “employee” liberally.”
N.J. Stat. § 34:19-2(c): 1 case
N.J. Stat. § 34:19-2(d): 3 cases
N.J. Stat. § 34:19-2(e): 77 cases
Borawski v. Henderson, 265 F. Supp. 2d 475 (D.N.J. 2003).
“CEPA protects employees from “retaliatory action” by an “employer” for, inter alia, “disclos[ing], or threatening] to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer ... that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law.”
Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243 (3d Cir. 2005).
“The CEPA defines “retaliatory action” as “the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.”
Nuness v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 3d 596 (D.N.J. 2016).
“” N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(e). To state a prima facie case for retaliation under the NJLAD, a plaintiff must show that she (1) engaged in protected activity, (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and…”
N.J. Stat. § 34:19-2(f): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.