Important Guidance on Whistle-blower Claims

There were far fewer than usual employment cases before the court this year, but there was a significant development under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1,et seq. (CEPA). In Hitesman v. Bridgeway, 218 N.J. 8 (2014), the court provides important clarifications, including with regard to what constitutes a clear mandate of public policy within the scope of the statute, and what proofs are required to support a CEPA claim in the health-care context based upon an alleged improper quality of patient care. It also provides useful guidance as to when and how clearly the foundation of a CEPA claim (the statute, public policy or other authority relied on) must be disclosed. And it provides a reminder and primer on the respective roles of the court and the jury at the trial of a CEPA claim.

Plaintiff James Hitesman was a registered nurse employed at a nursing home operated by defendant Bridgeway. He was terminated in January 2008, after he made complaints about the rate of infectious disease at the facility to his management, to government agencies and the media, and disclosed incorrectly redacted patient care records to a television reporter.