Dzwonar v. McDevitt
177 N.J. 451, 828 A.2d 893, 20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 371 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To state a claim under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), an employee's belief that their employer's conduct violates a law or public policy must be objectively reasonable, which requires a substantial nexus between the complained-of conduct and an identified law or public policy.
Facts:
- Regina Dzwonar was an elected, unpaid Recording Secretary and a paid Arbitration Officer for the Local 54 union.
- Dzwonar became concerned that the union's Executive Board was not fully disclosing certain financial decisions, such as expenditures and salaries, to the general membership for approval.
- Dzwonar believed the Board's practice of not reading its minutes at general membership meetings violated the union's bylaws and denied members their rights under the federal Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).
- In July 1997, Dzwonar sent a letter to the Board formally objecting to the failure to read the minutes at general membership meetings.
- In September 1997, union President Robert McDevitt, with the Board's approval, terminated Dzwonar from her paid position as an Arbitration Officer, citing "indiscretions and remarks" as the reason.
Procedural Posture:
- Regina Dzwonar filed a lawsuit in a New Jersey trial court against Local 54 and its officers, alleging retaliatory discharge in violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).
- At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dzwonar.
- The trial court denied the defendants' post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the New Jersey Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that federal labor law preempted Dzwonar's state CEPA claim.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court, the state's highest court, granted Dzwonar's petition for certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.
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 an employee state a valid claim under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) by objecting to an employer's conduct that they believe violates a law or public policy, when that belief is not objectively reasonable because the complained-of conduct lacks a substantial nexus to the identified law or policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Zazzali, J.
No. An employee does not state a valid claim under CEPA if their belief that the employer's conduct is unlawful is not objectively reasonable. To be objectively reasonable, there must be a substantial nexus between the complained-of conduct and an identified law or public policy. Here, Dzwonar's complaints about the Union's failure to read its minutes did not substantially relate to the LMRDA provisions she cited. The LMRDA sections on equal rights and free speech were not implicated because the Union's policy applied to all members equally and did not suppress specific viewpoints. Her claims regarding fiduciary duties under the LMRDA failed because she did not allege financial misappropriation, but rather a disagreement over internal reporting procedures. Finally, a violation of internal union bylaws is not a violation of a 'law, rule, or regulation' for CEPA purposes, and the dispute did not involve a clear mandate of public policy concerning public health, safety, or welfare.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'objectively reasonable belief' standard for CEPA claims, establishing a crucial gatekeeping function for trial courts. The court requires judges to perform a threshold analysis to ensure a 'substantial nexus' exists between the employee's complaint and a specific law or public policy. This precedent prevents CEPA from being used to resolve ordinary workplace or internal policy disputes, thereby narrowing the statute's application and protecting employers from claims based on an employee's purely subjective or mistaken understanding of the law.
