Kolb v. Burns
727 A.2d 525, 320 N.J.Super. 467 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), a retaliation claim is analyzed using the three-step burden-shifting framework from Title VII. An employee can defeat summary judgment by establishing a prima facie case of retaliation and then producing sufficient evidence to show that the employer's proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action is a pretext.
Facts:
- Louise Kolb, a tenured teacher, had a neurologically impaired student, E.J., in her third-grade class during the 1993-94 school year.
- In October 1993, Kolb provided a written summary to E.J.'s mother, W.B., stating her professional opinion that E.J. needed a small, special class.
- On October 27, 1993, Superintendent Dr. Carol Burns verbally instructed Kolb that another district employee must be present for any 'conferences' with W.B.
- W.B. subsequently filed petitions with the New Jersey Division of Special Education, which were transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), to change E.J.'s educational plan, a request the school district opposed.
- W.B. subpoenaed Kolb to testify at the OAL hearing.
- Between February and June 1994, Kolb testified on four occasions, describing E.J.'s difficulties and admitting she had phone conversations with W.B., which she did not believe the 'conference' directive prohibited.
- On June 23, 1994, after Kolb had testified, Dr. Burns gave her a satisfactory annual performance evaluation and recommended a normal salary increment.
- On August 25, 1994, after the Board's attorney reviewed the OAL transcripts, the Mansfield Township Board of Education voted to withhold Kolb's salary increment.
Procedural Posture:
- Louise Kolb filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, against the Mansfield Township Board of Education, its members, and the Superintendent, alleging retaliation under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Kolb's complaint.
- Kolb, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment 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:
Does an employee raise a triable issue of fact under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) by presenting sufficient evidence to suggest that an employer's proffered legitimate reasons for an adverse employment action may be pretextual?
Opinions:
Majority - Havey, P.J.A.D.
Yes, an employee raises a triable issue of fact by presenting sufficient evidence that the employer's stated reasons for its action may be a pretext for unlawful retaliation. To analyze a CEPA claim, the court adopts the three-step burden-shifting framework used in Title VII and LAD cases. First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation, which Kolb did by showing she engaged in a protected activity (testifying at an OAL hearing), suffered an adverse employment action (withholding of her salary increment), and that a causal link existed between the two. Second, the employer must articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. Here, the Board claimed it withheld the increment because Kolb disobeyed an administrative directive and failed to communicate E.J.'s issues to the Child Study Team. Third, the plaintiff must demonstrate that these reasons are pretextual. Kolb raised genuine issues of fact as to pretext by showing: (1) the 'directive' was verbal, ambiguous, and did not explicitly prohibit phone calls; (2) key personnel who heard her testimony did not believe she had withheld crucial information; and (3) the timing was suspicious, as she received a positive performance review after her testimony but the adverse action only occurred after the Board's lawyer reviewed the transcripts. A reasonable jury could find the Board's proffered reasons 'unworthy of credence' and infer that the true motive was retaliation for her testimony.
Analysis:
This case formally applies the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, common in discrimination law, to retaliation claims under New Jersey's CEPA. The decision empowers employees by clarifying that they do not need direct evidence of retaliatory motive to survive summary judgment. Instead, a plaintiff can proceed to trial by demonstrating weaknesses, inconsistencies, or contradictions in the employer's stated reasons for the adverse action. This holding reinforces CEPA's protective purpose, ensuring that employers cannot easily mask illegal retaliation behind facially legitimate, but ultimately pretextual, justifications.
Unlock the full brief for Kolb v. Burns