New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 34:19-1 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Conscientious Employee Protection Act."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 471
cases (178 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: James Hitesman v. Bridgeway, Inc. (072466), 93 A.3d 306 (N.J. 2014).
James Hitesman v. Bridgeway, Inc. (072466), 93 A.3d 306 (N.J. 2014). “In this appeal, the Court considers whether a health care worker may base a Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8, action upon his employer’s purported violation of standards set forth in a professional code of ethics, an employee handbook, and the…”
Steven Trzaska v. LOreal USA Inc, 865 F.3d 155 (3rd Cir. 2017). “Trzaska brought suit in District Court against both L’Oréal entities for wrongful retaliatory discharge in violation of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:19-1 et seq. Among other things, CEPA protects an employee from retaliatory…”
Ray Gary v. The Air Grp., Inc, 397 F.3d 183 (3rd Cir. 2005). “(“The Air Group”), a California corporation, alleging a violation of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. § 34:19-1 et seq. (“CEPA”). The District Court, holding that Gary’s state law whis-tleblower claim was preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation…”
State v. Ivonne Saavedra (073793), 117 A.3d 1169 (N.J. 2015). “They premised their claims on the LAD, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8, the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.”
Borawski v. Henderson, 265 F. Supp. 2d 475 (D.N.J. 2003). “) Borawski filed the amended complaint on December 20, 2002, seeking damages for (1) negligent hiring and retention (Count One); (2) defamation (Count Two); (3) slander per se (Count Three); (4) invasion of privacy (Count Four); (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress…”
James D. O'COnnOr Jeannette C. O'COnnOr v. City of Newark City of Newark Police Dep't, 440 F.3d 125 (3rd Cir. 2006). “He also alleged that the defendants violated his state-law whistle-blower rights under N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 (Count III), engaged in a conspiracy in violation of 42 U.”
United States Ex Rel. Wilkins v. United Health Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 295 (3rd Cir. 2011). “In *301 addition, Wilkins and Willis individually alleged that appellees violated the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:19-1 et seq. (West 2000).”
John Giovanni Granata v. Edward F. Broderick, Jr., 143 A.3d 309 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). “Granata filed a complaint for retaliatory discharge under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to 4 A-2928-14T2 -8, claiming that Prudential fired him in retaliation for complaining about discriminatory practices.”
Brian Royster v. New Jersey State Police(075926), 152 A.3d 900 (N.J. 2017). “In addition, plaintiff complained of retaliatory conduct in violation of the LAD, ADA, and New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14. 2 At the close of plaintiff’s case, the trial court categorically dismissed all of the LAD claims as…”
Richmond Lapolla v. Cnty. of Union, 157 A.3d 458 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “10:5-1 to -49, and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8, the NJCRA does not explicitly authorize an action for retaliation based upon the filing of a lawsuit.”
Est. of Oliva Ex Rel. McHugh v. New Jersey, 604 F.3d 788 (3rd Cir. 2010). “§§ 1981 , 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:19-1 et *797 seq. (West 2000), and the New Jersey-Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), N.”
Sarnowski v. Air Brooke Limousine, Inc., 510 F.3d 398 (3rd Cir. 2007). “; and the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Air Brook on all three claims.”
— N.J. Stat. § 34:19-1(c)(1) — 1 case
Michael Caruso v. Borough of Haddonfield (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024).
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.