Buccilli v. Timby, Brown & Timby
283 N.J. Super. 6, 1995 N.J. Super. LEXIS 247, 660 A.2d 1261 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The law of the state where an employment relationship is centered and the work is performed governs wrongful termination claims, regardless of the employee's state of residence. A court in one state can adjudicate a statutory cause of action created by another state if it is a transitory action and not contrary to the forum state's public policy.
Facts:
- Christine Buccilli, a New Jersey resident, was employed as a paralegal by the law firm Timby, Brown & Timby.
- Buccilli worked exclusively in the firm's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office.
- Buccilli alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment.
- She also objected to being required to sign attorneys' names to court documents and to a lack of attorney supervision of her work.
- Buccilli informed her employer that she intended to file a workers' compensation claim.
- Timby, Brown & Timby terminated Buccilli's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Christine Buccilli filed an action against Timby, Brown & Timby in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division (trial court).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing Buccilli's complaint on the grounds that Pennsylvania law applied and did not recognize her claims.
- The trial court granted Buccilli leave to file a second amended complaint alleging sexual discrimination and tortious interference.
- The trial court subsequently dismissed the sexual discrimination claim, ruling that it could only be adjudicated in a Pennsylvania court.
- Buccilli (appellant) appealed the dismissal of her claims for sexual discrimination, retaliatory firing for intending to file a workers' compensation claim, and retaliatory firing for objecting to work practices to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a New Jersey court adjudicate a New Jersey resident's wrongful termination claims under Pennsylvania law when the employment was exclusively in Pennsylvania, specifically claims arising under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and common law exceptions to at-will employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Brochin, J.A.D.
Yes, a New Jersey court can adjudicate most of these claims under Pennsylvania law. First, Pennsylvania substantive law governs this dispute because the employment relationship was entirely centered in Pennsylvania where all work was performed; applying the law of the workplace ensures uniformity and predictability for employers and co-workers. Second, New Jersey courts can hear a claim based on the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), as the statute's reference to Pennsylvania courts does not confer exclusive jurisdiction, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to entertain transitory causes of action created by sister states. Third, Pennsylvania law recognizes a public policy exception for an employee discharged in retaliation for intending to file a workers' compensation claim. However, Pennsylvania law does not provide a cause of action for retaliatory discharge based on a paralegal's complaints about internal office practices like signing documents, as these do not rise to the level of protecting a clear public policy mandate for which the employee has a special responsibility.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the choice-of-law principle that the situs of employment, not the employee's residence, dictates which state's law applies to employment disputes, promoting uniformity for employers with multi-state workforces. It also affirms the broad jurisdictional reach of state courts under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, preventing states from closing their doors to statutory claims arising under the laws of other states. The case thus provides a clear framework for handling cross-border employment litigation, ensuring that transitory causes of action can be heard in a forum with personal jurisdiction over the parties, even if the substantive law of another state applies.
