Green v. Jersey City Board of Education
828 A.2d 883, 20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 363, 177 N.J. 434 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), punitive damages may be awarded against a public entity for egregious retaliatory conduct. For a claim based on a continuing course of such conduct, the one-year statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the final retaliatory act.
Facts:
- In May 1995, Doris Green, a teacher, was asked by her principal, Cassandra Wiggins, to participate in a payroll scheme Green believed to be fraudulent or illegal.
- Green refused to participate in the scheme.
- Two months later, Green inadvertently received and deposited a check related to the scheme, which she then reported to the Jersey City Board of Education's payroll supervisor.
- Green followed instructions to return the money by mailing a check to the Board with an explanatory letter.
- Beginning in September 1995, Wiggins initiated a continuous course of retaliatory conduct against Green for reporting the incident.
- The retaliation included substandard evaluations, relocation to a dilapidated classroom, denial of necessary supplies and a lab key, and unfair treatment of her students.
- This pattern of retaliatory acts continued through the spring of 1997.
- In May 1997, Green went on medical leave due to a major depressive disorder caused by the work situation and was unable to return to teaching.
Procedural Posture:
- Doris Green filed a civil action in a New Jersey trial court against the Jersey City Board of Education and individual defendants, alleging a violation of CEPA.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict against the Board of Education, awarding Green $265,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages.
- The Jersey City Board of Education (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the punitive damages award but reversed the trial court's imposition of prejudgment interest on that award.
- The Jersey City Board of Education petitioned for certification to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court, which granted the petition.
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 the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) permit an award of punitive damages against a public entity, and does the one-year statute of limitations for a claim involving a continuing course of retaliation begin to run from the last retaliatory act?
Opinions:
Majority - Poritz, C.J.
Yes. Punitive damages are permissible against public entities under CEPA, and the statute of limitations for a continuing violation begins with the last act of retaliation. CEPA’s plain language explicitly authorizes punitive damages and defines 'employer' to include public entities like school districts, without providing an exemption that would otherwise be available under the Tort Claims Act (TCA). The court reaffirms its reasoning in similar cases, noting that CEPA, like the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), is a remedial civil rights statute whose purpose is to discourage such conduct, justifying the imposition of punitive damages under a heightened standard requiring 'actual participation by upper management or willful indifference.' Furthermore, the Legislature's failure to amend CEPA despite nine years of judicial interpretation to this effect constitutes legislative acquiescence. The court also adopts the 'continuing violation' doctrine for CEPA claims, holding that a pattern of retaliatory acts constitutes a single, cumulative unlawful employment practice, and the statute of limitations accrues on the date of the final act.
Dissenting - Verniero, J.
No. The majority's decision to permit punitive damages against a public entity is contrary to the public interest and lacks a clear, unambiguous legislative mandate. The dissent argues that the baseline principle of sovereign immunity, as affirmed in the Tort Claims Act (TCA), should prevent such awards unless a statute explicitly and unmistakably waives that immunity, which CEPA does not. Punitive damages in this context punish innocent taxpayers and divert scarce resources from public services, like the education of needy students, rather than the actual wrongdoers. Moreover, the deterrent effect is minimal, as compensatory damages and attorneys' fees already provide a significant deterrent, and upper-level managers are unlikely to be deterred by an award against their employer.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that public entities in New Jersey are not immune from punitive damages under CEPA, creating a significant exception to the general immunity provided by the Tort Claims Act. It firmly establishes 'legislative acquiescence' as a powerful tool of statutory interpretation, placing the burden on the Legislature to correct the court's interpretation if it disagrees. By formally applying the 'continuing violation' doctrine to CEPA, the court significantly expands protection for whistleblowers who endure long-term harassment, ensuring they are not time-barred from suing simply because the initial retaliatory acts occurred more than a year before the lawsuit was filed.
