Articles Posted in Retaliation

People who believe that their employers have engaged in illegal or unethical behavior should be able to come forward without fear of losing their jobs or facing other forms of retaliation. New Jersey employment law offers broad protections for whistleblowers who report alleged wrongdoing by their employers and engage in other protected activities. At the federal level, numerous statutes include whistleblower protections in specific industries or for specific types of claims. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), for example, protects employees of publicly-traded corporations who report alleged fraud or violations of securities laws. The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case involving a dispute over who has the burden of proving “retaliatory intent” in SOX whistleblower cases.

New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) prohibits employers from “tak[ing] any retaliatory action” against an employee for numerous protected activities. These may include the following:
– Reporting or threatening to report activities that the employee reasonably believes are illegal, unethical, or fraudulent;
– Cooperating with investigations or hearings regarding suspected illegal acts by the employer;
– Testifying in connection with such investigations;
– Objecting to activities or policies that the employee believes are unlawful, fraudulent, or against public policy; and
– Reporting an alleged violation of CEPA.

While CEPA applies to all employers in New Jersey, the whistleblower protection provisions in SOX only apply to employers that are also publicly-traded corporations governed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations. The statute’s list of protected activities is similar to CEPA’s list, except that it only applies to reports and investigations related to certain types of fraud, including wire fraud, bank fraud, and securities fraud, as well as violations of SEC regulations and other securities laws.
Continue reading

Government regulators enforce a wide variety of laws, from statutes prohibiting employment discrimination to those that deal with securities fraud and other fraudulent activities. They rely on information provided by business insiders, but many employees might hesitate to report potential legal violations by their employers for fear of losing their jobs. New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) is one of many whistleblower protection statutes that prohibit retaliation by employers against employees who report their concerns. Proving that an adverse employment action constituted unlawful retaliation can be tricky, and different statutes have different requirements. A federal appellate court recently ruled on a whistleblower claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). It found that this statute has a more difficult standard of proof than CEPA. If you fear retaliation or discrimination for reporting legal violations in the workplace, reach out to a New Jersey employment lawyer to review your options.

CEPA provides rather broad protection for whistleblowers in New Jersey. It applies to employees who:
– Report alleged violations of a statute or regulation, either internally or to a regulatory agency;
– Provide information or testimony as part of an ongoing investigation into a possible violation of the law; or
– Object to or decline to participate in an activity that they reasonably believe would violate the law or go against public policy.
The statute’s definition of a “retaliatory action” includes termination, suspension, demotion, and other adverse actions.

An employee claiming unlawful retaliation under CEPA must show a causal connection between their whistleblowing activities and the adverse action against them. New Jersey court rulings have held that a plaintiff can establish this element by producing enough evidence to allow a judge or jury “to infer that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause” of the employer’s adverse action. The recent appellate court decision regarding SOX found a much stricter burden of proof for plaintiffs.
Continue reading