A man who claims he was fired for refusing to take sides in a co-worker's sexual harassment case can proceed with his own retaliation suit, even if he isn't sure whether the other employee's claims have merit, the Appellate Division has ruled.

In a published opinion applying the Law Against Discrimination's anti-retaliation provisions, the appeals court reinstated Emiliano Rios' suit claiming he was fired after refusing to help management strike back at a colleague for filing a sexual harassment suit.

A paramedic for Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center in Secaucus, Rios says he was offered a promotion if he would make false statements against another paramedic, Heatherlee Bailey, who had filed a sexual harassment suit against the hospital and other parties. The judge who dismissed Rios' suit said he could not make a claim for retaliation under the LAD because he had no knowledge of the facts of Bailey's case. But the appeals court said the judge below misapplied Carmona v. Resorts International, a 2007 Supreme Court case requiring a retaliation case under the LAD to be made only if the underlying complaint is made in good faith. 

In Carmona, the court said a discrimination complaint brought in bad faith could not provide the basis to establish retaliation under the LAD.

The judge below in Rios' case, Joseph Isabella, said Rios must bear the burden of showing that Bailey had a good-faith, reasonable basis for complaining about her treatment in the workplace.

Judge Francis Vernoia, writing for the panel that included Judges Carmen Messano and Mitchel Ostrer, said the LAD forbids reprisals against someone who has filed a discrimination complaint, as well as because a person has "opposed any practices or acts forbidden under" the LAD.

In Carmona, the plaintiff claimed in his suit that he was fired after complaining about harassment and discrimination. But in the present case, the alleged retaliation against Rios was not triggered by Bailey's suit, but by Rios' refusal to participate in his employer's efforts to retaliate against Bailey, the court said.

"Here, the filing of Bailey's complaint was not the protected action under [the LAD] that triggered the retaliation plaintiff alleges in the complaint. The Court's decision in Carmona, therefore, does not require that plaintiff demonstrate a good faith and reasonable basis for Bailey's complaint," Vernoia wrote.

"Such a requirement would be inconsistent with the broad remedial purposes of the LAD because it would bar claims of employees, like plaintiff, who have no knowledge regarding the basis of a co-employee's underlying complaint, but who nonetheless have a good faith and reasonable basis to oppose an employer's actions that otherwise violate the LAD," Vernoia wrote for the court.

The panel said Carmona requires Rios to demonstrate "there was a good faith and reasonable basis for his opposition to defendant's actions that are forbidden by the LAD. Having reviewed the summary judgment record, we are satisfied plaintiff sustained that burden by presenting evidence [the LAD] also prohibits reprisals against a person who assist[s] [another person] in any proceeding under" the LAD or "aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by" the LAD.

Rios demonstrated he had a good-faith and reasonable belief that his superiors' requests to take actions against Bailey constituted efforts to unlawfully retaliate against her for filing her sexual harassment complaint, Vernoia said.

Rios' lawyer, Thomas McKinney of Castronovo & McKinney in Morristown, said the results would be disastrous if the trial judge's ruling were allowed to stand.

"Based on that ruling, employers could ask any employee to lie for them. If they refused, they could be terminated. That would be permitted under the law. I'm certainly glad the court did not take that position" on appeal, said McKinney.

The case can now proceed to trial, said McKinney.

Margaret O'Rourke Wood of Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi in West Orange, who represented Meadowlands Hospital, did not respond to a request for comment.