Law Articles
To search for a particular term please use the following search box.
Click on a Topic to see available articles for that topic.
- Accidents
- Administrative Law
- Admiralty Law
- Articles
- Banking
- Bankruptcy Law
- Canon Law
- Case Law
- Civil Law
- Civil Rights
- Class Action Lawsuits
- Commercial Law
- Common Law
- Comparative Law
- Constitutional Law
- Consumer Law
- Contracts
- Corporate Law
- Courts
- Criminal Law
- Cyber Law
- Dispute Resolution
- Employment Law
- Equity
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Fiduciary Law
- General Practice
- Government
- Health Law
- Immigration Law
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Jurisprudence
- Labor Law
- Law and Economics
- Maritime Law
- Military Law
- Natural Law
- Personal Injury Law
- Philosophy of Law
- Property Law
- Public Law
- Real Estate Law
- Social Security
- Space Law
- Statutory Law
- Tax Law
- Traffic Law
- Trusts and Estates
- Water Law
Return to Law Dictionary Index
Big Verdict For Janitor Who Complained About Broken Toilets
by Jonathan Meyers, Esq.
Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Division's decision to let stand a $194,000 jury verdict in favor of a part-time janitor who complained about broken toilets and a burnt out light-bulb. In addition to holding that the janitor was a legitimate "whistle-blower" under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act ("CEPA"), the Supreme Court also ordered that the case go back down to trial to decide how much punitive damages and attorneys' fees should be imposed against the employer.
After the jury came back with a plaintiff's verdict along with an award for $44,000 in lost wages and $150,000 for emotional distress, the trial court judge entered a JNOV, nullifying the jury's decision. The trial judge lamented that "I should have never let [the case] go to the jury." Concerning the whistle-blowing disclosures of the plaintiff, the judge remarked "talk about trivial... it is trivialization beyond belief."
Nonetheless, a divided Supreme Court held that the trial judge should not have negated the jury's award and concluded that the employer's failure to respond quickly enough to unclog toilets and change a light bulb were sufficient bases upon which the plaintiff could articulate a CEPA claim because they dealt with issues of health and safety.
In a stinging dissent, Supreme Court Justice LaVecchia noted that CEPA was intended to protect employees who try to expose "illegal activities." He believed that the employer's failure to respond quickly to unclog toilets and replace a light bulb should not be viewed as a statutorily-recognized "activity, policy or practice" of the employer about which an employee could blow the whistle. The dissent further criticized the majority opinion because the plaintiff, who was a janitor, was the person at the school who was responsible for fixing the toilets and replacing the light bulb. Thus, the plaintiff was rewarded with a substantial jury verdict for having essentially complained about his own dereliction of duty.
The Hernandez case represents a further liberalization of what kinds of disclosures will be deemed "protected" under New Jersey law and makes it more difficult for employers to distinguish between an employee's ordinary griping and statutorily-protected whistle-blowing.
About the Author
Jonathan Meyers, Esq. is an attorney who practices in New York and New Jersey with the law firm of Grotta, Glassman & Hoffman, a firm that limits its practice to representing management in employment and labor law matters. He can be contacted at employmentlawyer@lawyer.com