May an employee copy confidential company documents for the purpose of prosecuting a gender discrimination claim against her employer? The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed this controversial question in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp ., 204 N.J. 239 (2010). The Court reviewed and reversed the order of the Appellate Division, which had vacated the jury’s $4.5 million punitive damage award.
The Court sought to strike a balance between the employee’s entitlement to be free from discrimination and retaliation and the employer’s right to safeguard its confidential documents and conduct its business. The Quinlan court’s resulting “flexible, totality of the circumstances” test is a measured approach which largely adopts the analytical framework set forth in Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. , 529 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, while the Quinlan fact pattern — which involved the employee’s unauthorized copying of documents containing employees’ confidential personal information — has earned the case notoriety, the Quinlan court’s holding provides the lower courts with a great deal of latitude to analyze retaliation claims.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
