Source: https://www.thenjemploymentlawfirmblog.com/category/retaliation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:39:43+00:00

Document:
Retaliation Category Archives — The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog Published by New Jersey Employment Attorney — Resnick Law Group, P.C.
The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) regulates a wide range of activities by publicly traded companies. Section 806 of SOX, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, protects whistleblowers against retaliation for reporting suspected legal violations. It allows employees to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), potentially followed by a lawsuit in federal district court. The DOL’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) has held that a whistleblower need only have a “reasonable belief” that a legal violation has occurred to engage in “protected activity” under § 806 of SOX. Sylvester v. Parexel Int’l, ARB Case No. 07-123 (ARB, May 25, 2011). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes New Jersey, recently ruled on the question of “reasonable belief” in an SOX whistleblower claim, which could have an impact on New Jersey whistleblowers. Westawski v. Merck & Co. Inc., No. 16-4075, slip op. (3d Cir., Jun. 27, 2018).The whistleblower protection provisions of § 806 apply to companies that have securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or that are required to file reports under that statute. Employees who report suspected fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, or securities fraud, or who cooperate in an investigation of one of these alleged offenses, are entitled to protection. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a), citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1344, and 1348. An employee must file a complaint with the DOL. If the DOL has not issued a ruling within 180 days, the employee can usually file a complaint in federal court. Available damages include reinstatement, back pay, court costs, and attorney’s fees.
The statute requires that the whistleblower “reasonably believes” that their employer has violated one or more of the enumerated federal fraud statutes. Id. at § 1514A(a)(1). The ARB has interpreted this requirement as having two parts: (1) the employee has “a subjective belief that the complained-of conduct constitutes a violation of relevant law”; and (2) “the belief is objectively reasonable.” Sylvester at 14. As long as the employee’s belief is both subjectively and objectively reasonable, the ARB held, their actions are protected even if no legal violations actually occurred.
The U.S. Constitution limits the government’s ability to infringe on a range of rights, including the First Amendment right to free speech. In the context of New Jersey employment matters, this usually places far more limits on public employers than private employers. As a general rule, a private employer does not infringe on an employee’s freedom of speech if they discipline or fire that employee because of statements they have made. Since public employers are part of the government, they have less leeway with regard to employee speech. A lawsuit filed earlier this year, however, alleges that a private employer violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by firing her because of her speech. Briskman v. Akima, LLC, No. 2018-5335, complaint (Va. Cir. Ct., Fairfax Cty., Apr. 4, 2018). The plaintiff claims that the defendant fired her “out of fear of unlawful retaliation by the government for constitutionally protected speech,” id. at 8, and that this makes her termination a violation of her First Amendment rights.
Caselaw has largely established broad protections for the free speech rights of public employees with regard to their employment. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a public employee who speaks out about “issues of public importance” cannot be subject to termination by their employer, unless their statements were “knowingly or recklessly” false. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 574 (1968). This does not apply, however, when the employee is speaking in their official capacity as a government employee. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).
Private employers have fewer restrictions with regard to disciplining employees, including terminating them, for statements they have made. This often applies even when the statement or statements at issue involved matters of public concern that were unrelated to the employee’s position with the employer. Some exceptions apply, such as when the speech involves activities protected by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157, or when a state or local anti-discrimination law includes protections for “political activities,” N.Y. Lab. L. § 201-D. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that termination for an employee’s political activities, or their refusal to participate in political activities, could violate public policy. Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F. 2d 894 (3rd Cir. 1983).
Businesses have an obligation to protect their assets and interests, but not in ways that damage their employees. New Jersey employers can protect their interests with covenants not to compete, also known as noncompete clauses, which limit employees’ ability to work for, or become, a competitor after their employment ends. A bill pending in the New Jersey Legislature would significantly restrict the enforceability of noncompete clauses. An Assembly committee reported favorably on A1769 in May 2018, while the Senate counterpart, S635, is still awaiting a committee hearing.
In order for a noncompete clause to be enforceable under current New Jersey employment law, it must be reasonably limited in both time and geographic scope. A noncompete clause that purported to prohibit a former employee from ever working for a competing company anywhere in New Jersey would be unenforceable on its face because it is not even close to being reasonably limited to the protection of the employer’s interests at the moment the employee ceases to be employed. If the noncompete clause only restricted employment with a competitor within, for example, five miles of the employer’s location for six months, it would probably be enforceable. Even then, however, noncompete clauses often require workers to relocate or change fields solely to avoid liability to their former employer.
Employees who report or object to practices that they believe to be illegal or contrary to public policy are commonly known as “whistleblowers.” Some of the biggest cases of fraud and corruption in recent history—both in government and in the private sector—have resulted from whistleblower reports. Employees and other insiders are often in the best position to provide evidence of wrongdoing, but doing so can pose great risk to their own jobs. Numerous laws therefore protect whistleblowers from retaliation, including New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). A lawsuit filed in New Jersey alleges that an automobile manufacturer retaliated against the plaintiff, in violation of CEPA, after he reported concerns to several supervisors and managers about possibly deceptive practices. Williams v. Tesla, Inc. et al., No. BUR-L-000194-18, complaint (N.J. Super. Ct., Burlington Cty., Jan. 26, 2018); removed to No. 1:18-cv-04120 (D.N.J., Mar. 23, 2018).Under CEPA, employers may not retaliate against an employee who reports suspected illegal, fraudulent, or otherwise wrongful conduct to a supervisor or a public body, including law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and legislative bodies. Retaliation is also prohibited if an employee participates in a public investigation of allegedly fraudulent or illegal activity, such as by testifying or providing other information; or if an employee “objects to, or refuses to participate in” acts that the employee believes to be illegal or in violation of public policy. N.J. Rev. Stat. 34:19-3. Aggrieved employees can file suit, and remedies may include reinstatement, lost wages, attorney’s fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Id. at § 34:19-5.
The defendant in Williams manufactures electric-powered automobiles and sells them to the general public. The plaintiff states in his complaint that he began working for the defendant in 2011. He claims that he became aware that the defendant “fail[ed] to disclose to consumers high-dollar, pre-delivery damage repairs prior to any transaction with consumers.” Williams, complaint at 2. The plaintiff “believed this practice to be illegal and/or fraudulent.” Id. He also allegedly learned that the defendant would “receiv[e] vehicles designated as ‘lemons,’” a term referring to a car with irreparable defects. Id. The plaintiff claims that the defendant would sell these vehicles to consumers without disclosing their “lemon” status, as required by state law. See N.J. Rev. Stat. § 56:12-35.
The plaintiff alleges that he reported his concerns to his direct supervisor, a regional manager, and a vice president in late 2016 and early 2017. He was working as a regional manager at that time. The supervisor and the regional manager reported to a director identified in the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff claims that this director demoted him from regional manager to service manager, allegedly telling the plaintiff that he had “a ‘brand’ at the company and that there was no place for” him there. Williams at 3. The director allegedly demoted him again in July 2017, and he claims that a regional manager terminated him in September of that year, offering only pretextual reasons.
Enforcement of a wide range of laws and regulations depends on reporting by people with knowledge of possible violations, often known as “whistleblowers.” In cases involving suspected wrongdoing by an employer, many potential whistleblowers may hesitate to speak out, for fear of losing their jobs. In New Jersey, employment statutes protect whistleblowers against retaliation by their employers. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on a dispute over the whistleblower protections in the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”). It held that, unlike many other whistleblower protection laws, Dodd-Frank protects people who report their concerns to the government, but not those who only report internally. Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U.S. ___ (2018).
New Jersey whistleblowers may report their concerns to government regulators or to internal control officers. The New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) protects public and private employees who disclose suspected legal violations, or who refuse to take part in acts that they reasonably believe are illegal or unethical. This includes disclosures made “to a supervisor or to a public body.” N.J. Rev. Stat. § 34:19-3(a). The language of Dodd-Frank, however, is not as clear on this issue.
Congress passed Dodd-Frank as a response to the financial crisis of 2008. The statute defines “whistleblower” as one or more individuals who report alleged violations of securities laws or regulations “to the Commission, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the Commission.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(6). The term “Commission” is defined elsewhere in the same chapter as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), with an exception when “the context otherwise requires” a different interpretation. Id. at § 78c(a)(15). The question for the Supreme Court was whether Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower protections apply to someone who makes a report to someone other than the SEC.

References: § 1514
 § 806
 v. 
 v. 
 § 806
 § 1514
 § 1514
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 157
 § 201
 v. 
 v. 
 § 34
 § 56
 v. 
 § 34
 § 78
 § 78