Donelson v. DuPont Chambers Works
206 N.J. 243, 20 A.3d 384, 32 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 655 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), an employee can recover damages for lost wages if the employer's retaliatory actions proximately cause a psychological disability that renders the employee unable to work, even if the employee does not prove a constructive discharge.
Facts:
- John Seddon was a thirty-year employee at a DuPont chemical manufacturing facility where he worked as an operator technician with highly toxic chemicals.
- In December 2002, after his internal complaints were ignored, Seddon filed a complaint with the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding unsafe nighttime vehicle searches of employees.
- After DuPont learned of the OSHA complaint, a new supervisor, Paul Kaiser, was assigned to Seddon and began imposing new, specific reporting requirements on him.
- In October 2003, Seddon again complained to management about unsafe conditions, this time regarding the operation of a phosgene reactor, warning it could lead to a catastrophic release of deadly gas.
- Following his safety reports, Seddon alleged that Kaiser subjected him to a pattern of harassment, including false accusations of forging timecards and making fictitious log entries, negative performance reviews, and constant verbal abuse.
- In April 2004, DuPont placed Seddon on a 53-day paid suspension pending a "fit-for-duty" evaluation; though cleared by three mental-health experts, he was placed on probation upon his return.
- In September 2006, DuPont assigned Seddon to work twelve-hour shifts in isolation, which Seddon described as "torture."
- Seddon's mental health deteriorated, leading to anxiety attacks and depression; he took a leave of absence in January 2007, after which he was given a disability pension and never returned to work at DuPont.
Procedural Posture:
- John Seddon sued E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) in a New Jersey state trial court, alleging retaliation in violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).
- Before trial, DuPont filed a motion in limine to bar Seddon's claim for economic damages (front and back pay) because he had not pleaded constructive discharge; the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury found in favor of Seddon, awarding him $724,000 in economic losses and $500,000 in punitive damages, and the trial court awarded attorney's fees.
- DuPont, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Seddon, as appellee, could not recover lost wages without proving a constructive discharge.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Seddon's petition for certification on the limited issue of whether recovery for lost wages under CEPA requires proof of actual or constructive discharge.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) require an employee to prove constructive discharge to recover lost wages when the employer's retaliation proximately caused a psychological disability rendering the employee unable to continue working?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Albin
No. The New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) does not require an employee to prove constructive discharge to recover lost wages where the employer's unlawful retaliation proximately causes a psychological disability rendering the employee unfit for duty. CEPA is remedial legislation that must be liberally construed to protect whistle-blowers. The statute prohibits any 'retaliatory action,' which includes not only discharge, suspension, and demotion, but also 'other adverse employment action.' A pattern of reprisals causing an employee to suffer a mental breakdown that renders him unfit for continued employment constitutes such an adverse action. Under CEPA, a prevailing employee is entitled to '[a]ll remedies available in common law tort actions,' which includes damages for diminished earning capacity. Therefore, if an employer's retaliation is the proximate cause of a disabling psychological injury, the employee is entitled to recover resulting lost wages without having to meet the objective 'reasonable person' standard required for a constructive discharge claim.
Dissenting - Justice LaVecchia
Yes. An employee must prove actual or constructive discharge to recover post-employment damages for front and back pay under CEPA. The majority's decision improperly creates a new, subjective standard for recovering lost wages that circumvents the well-established, objective tort of constructive discharge. CEPA incorporates common law tort remedies but does not alter their fundamental elements. The common law action for wrongful termination of employment requires proof of either an actual or constructive discharge, the latter of which demands a showing that working conditions were 'so intolerable that a reasonable person' would be forced to resign. By allowing recovery based on a subjective psychological injury, the majority conflates proximate causation with the extent of damages and undermines the policy of encouraging employees to remain employed while seeking internal remedies. Seddon made a strategic choice not to plead constructive discharge and should not be permitted to recover damages for it through a backdoor claim of a non-specific CEPA violation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of recoverable damages under CEPA by decoupling lost wage claims from the stringent requirements of constructive discharge. The ruling establishes that a plaintiff can recover front and back pay if they can medically prove a causal link between the employer's retaliatory conduct and a resulting work-ending disability. This lowers the threshold for such claims, shifting the focus from an objective evaluation of the workplace conditions to a subjective, causation-based inquiry into the individual employee's psychological harm. The decision is likely to increase employer liability in CEPA cases and will place a greater emphasis on the role of expert medical testimony in proving damages.
