Opinion ID: 773265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: cepa claim

Text: 38 The District Court held that Baldassare's initiation of a retaliation claim under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) effected a waiver of his other state law claims, which were based on identical facts. Of these claims, Baldassare only appeals the waiver of his claims alleging tortious violation of his state constitutional right to freedom of speech and tortious interference with economic advantage. We will affirm. 39 We examine the state law claims in light of the statute's language and its interpretation by New Jersey courts. In 1986, the New Jersey legislature enacted CEPA to protect public employees who blow the whistle on governmental organizations or employees engaged in wrongful conduct from retaliatory action. 10 Abbamont v. Piscataway Township Bd. of Educ., 138 N.J. 405, 650 A.2d 958, 964 (N.J. 1994). As part of the statute, the state legislature included a waiver provision that provides: 40 Nothing in this act shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any other federal or State law or regulation or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; except that the institution of an action in accordance with this act shall be deemed a waiver of the rights and remedies available under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, State law, rule or regulation or under common law. 41 N.J. Stat. Ann. 34:19-8. 42 The New Jersey Supreme Court has interpreted the scope of this waiver provision and concluded: 43 Once a CEPA claim is instituted, any rights or claims for retaliatory discharge based on a contract of employment; collective bargaining agreement; State law, whether its origin is in the Legislature, the courts, the common law or rules of the court; or regulations or decisions based on statutory authority, are all waived. The waiver exception contains a list of sources of law that may provide a bundle of rights protecting employees from retaliatory discharge. Parallel claims based on those rights, privileges and remedies are waived because they represent multiple or duplicative claims based on retaliatory discharge. 44 Young v. Schering Corp., 141 N.J. 16, 660 A.2d 1153, 1160 (N.J. 1995). 45 By contrast, the court found the waiver would not apply to those causes of action that are substantially independent of the CEPA claim. Id. Because Baldassare's state law claims arise from the same set of facts surrounding his retaliation claim, and CEPA prohibits litigating duplicative claims, we will affirm the order dismissing his other state law claims. 46 The District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Baldassare's remaining CEPA claim since the dismissal of his First Amendment claim disposed of all federal issues. 11 But given our reversal of the grant of summary of judgment on Baldassare's retaliation claim under the First Amendment, we will vacate the District Court's order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his CEPA claim. We express no opinion on whether the District Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction in this matter.