[brief] This appeal arises from a CEPA complaint brought by Plaintiff [...] ("Plaintiff") against Defendants [...], [...] ("Defendant Conicello"), and [...] ("Defendant Lambrecht").  Plaintiff is a former staffing coordinator for Defendant [...], who directly reported to Defendant Conicello.  Defendant Conicello had a well-documented history of harassment and abusive behavior in the workplace.  Her conduct, however, went beyond the generalized workplace gripes and represented seriously threatening behavior, implicating the language of this State’s criminal harassment statute.  When Plaintiff and others raised legitimate complaints about her conduct, she orchestrated a campaign to terminate them, using accusations related to "charge pay" (a one dollar per hour extra payroll charge she had previously approved) as a pretext for retaliation.  The trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants ignored these key facts and resolved critical issues that should have been left for a jury's determination.  Defendant Conicello’s pattern of harassment was evident and persistent.  She frequently directed aggressive behavior towards Plaintiff and others, including verbal abuse, profanity, and even intimidating gestures.  Plaintiff, along with other colleagues, consistently reported this misconduct to management.  After a particularly appalling incident in June 2020 (which Defendant Conicello was aware would initiate an investigation), Defendant Conicello turned the tables, shifting the focus away from her own misconduct and instead launching an investigation into Plaintiff and her co-workers over allegations of “charge pay” misuse.  Defendant Conicello had initially authorized the charge pay.  Yet, once the scrutiny turned toward her conduct, she conveniently claimed ignorance of these payments, shifting blame onto Plaintiff and others.  The timing of this sudden concern over charge pay – in conjunction with a pending HR complaint against her – strongly suggests that it was a pretext, meant to create grounds for disciplinary action and eventual termination.  In doing so Defendant Conicello successfully short-circuited any real investigation into her own conduct.  This narrative of retaliation is supported by both the timing and nature of Defendants’ actions.  Plaintiff was subjected to an investigation that deviated from standard practice, with Defendants bypassing the usual progressive discipline policy and moving straight to termination.  It also contrasts with the treatment of others who had been identified as having committed “time theft,” Plaintiff and her co-workers were immediately terminated while those offenders were permitted to simply repay the money.  When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is clear that a jury could reasonably find that Defendant Conicello retaliated against Plaintiff for her complaints about her behavior.  The trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to have a jury assess the evidence and draw the reasonable inference that Defendant Conicello’s actions were retaliatory.  For these reasons, the trial court’s decision should be reversed.