Court Opinion

ID: 9715487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:06:54.009481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:35.247025
License: Public Domain

Justice WALLACE, JR.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I am in substantial agreement with the reasoning of the Appellate Division that we should not impose a *381new standard and require that plaintiff establish a good faith, reasonable belief that he or she was engaged in protected activity. Moreover, the trial court, in rejecting defendant’s request to give a good faith-reasonable belief charge to the jury, found that “if there is a reasonable requirement under the law in New Jersey it [has] already been met here.” Consequently, I see no reason for a retrial. . ■
Beyond that, I find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s exclusion of defendant’s investigative report.’ The jury was informed that an investigation was undertaken and the investigator testified concerning his investigation. Thus, plaintiff was able to cross-examine the investigator to assist the jury, in receiving a complete picture concerning the report, but without the admission of the report. I find no error, let alone reversible error.
For reversal and remandment — Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN and RIVERA-SOTO — 5.
For affirmance — Justice WALLACE — 1.