The protection against retaliatory action provided by this act pertaining to disclosure to a public body shall not apply to an employee who makes a disclosure to a public body unless the employee has brought the activity, policy or practice in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law to the attention of a supervisor of the employee by written notice and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy or practice. Disclosure shall not be required where the employee is reasonably certain that the activity, policy or practice is known to one or more supervisors of the employer or where the employee reasonably fears physical harm as a result of the disclosure provided, however, that the situation is emergency in nature.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2013–2023 · leading case:
Stapleton v. DSW, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 635 (D.N.J. 2013).
Stapleton v. DSW, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 635 (D.N.J. 2013).
· cites it 2× “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:19-4 (emphasis added).”
Joel S. Lippman, M.D. v. Ethicon, Inc. (073324) (N.J. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Through N.J.S.A. 34:19-4, the Legislature has required prior notice to the employer and opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice, in order for a putative whistleblower plaintiff to obtain protection against retaliatory action for disclosure made to a public body.”
Murray v. Cnty. of Hudson (D.N.J. 2023).
“To invoke this statute, the employee who intends to report alleged wrongdoing must advise a supervisor in writing and give the supervisor a reasonable opportunity to correct the problem, N.J.S.A. 34:19-4. Further, the statute provides, in relevant part, that: "Upon a violation…”
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.