In December 2013, the Appellate Division rolled out a decision in State v. Saavedra that somewhat quiets the thunder of the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright, an employment discrimination case where the court determined that an employee who copied her employer’s confidential documents for use in litigation against the company was engaged in protected activity within the meaning of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright, 204 N.J. 239 (2010).
Quinlan vexed employers and their representatives, who criticized the decision for having the effect of emboldening employees to misappropriate confidential documents—a problem that was apparent even before, and could only be exacerbated by, this decision. Saavedra has partially tempered this storm, as the Appellate Division announced that employees who take confidential employer documents to support potential LAD and Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) claims will not categorically be insulated from criminal prosecution under theft and official misconduct statutes. State v. Saavedra, 433 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 2013).
This content has been archived.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]
