Maimone v. City of Atlantic City
24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1378, 188 N.J. 221, 903 A.2d 1055 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who objects to an employer's policy of non-enforcement of specific criminal statutes has a valid claim under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) if the employee can show an objectively reasonable belief that the policy is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning public health, safety, or welfare. A complete cessation of enforcement, rather than a mere reallocation of resources, can form the basis for such a reasonable belief.
Facts:
- Angelo Maimone was a detective in the Atlantic City Police Department's Special Investigations Unit, assigned to investigate prostitution and sexually-related offenses.
- In May 2000, Arthur C. Snellbaker was appointed Chief of Police.
- Around January 2001, Maimone's superiors directed him to terminate all pending investigations into the promotion of prostitution and to conduct only narcotics investigations.
- Around the same time, Maimone's intelligence files on prostitution and escort services were removed from his control, and his access to them was restricted.
- On April 6, 2001, Maimone sent a memo to his supervisor, Sergeant Abrams, complaining about his lack of access to the files; Abrams allegedly responded, 'You’re asking for it.'
- Maimone also complained about the city's failure to enforce a law restricting sexually-oriented businesses from operating near schools and churches, sending a memo on May 26, 2001.
- Within days of his last memo, a superior, Captain Glass, told Maimone, 'You’re out of here, you’re going to patrol.'
- Effective June 10, 2001, Maimone was transferred from detective to patrol officer, resulting in a 3% salary reduction and loss of other benefits. The department told him the transfer was for attending a wedding three years prior.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Angelo Maimone filed suit against Atlantic City and Police Chief Snellbaker in a New Jersey trial court, alleging violations of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).
- After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Maimone could not have an objectively reasonable belief that the department's discretionary policy decisions violated a clear mandate of public policy.
- Maimone appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
- The defendants, Atlantic City and Snellbaker, petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification, which was granted.
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 a police officer have an objectively reasonable belief that a department's policy decision to cease enforcing certain criminal laws is 'incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare' under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Skillman
Yes. A police officer can have an objectively reasonable belief that a department's policy decision to cease enforcing certain criminal laws is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy under CEPA. The statutes prohibiting the promotion of prostitution and restricting the location of sexually-oriented businesses are themselves clear mandates of public policy concerning public health, safety, and welfare. Under CEPA, a plaintiff need only show an 'objectively reasonable belief' that the employer's conduct is incompatible with such a policy, not that it actually violated it. Maimone presented sufficient evidence—including directives to stop all investigations and the confiscation of his files—for a jury to find he reasonably believed the department instituted a policy of complete cessation of enforcement, which is distinct from a mere discretionary reallocation of resources. Furthermore, his transfer, which resulted in reduced compensation and benefits, constituted an 'adverse employment action,' and the temporal proximity to his complaints established a plausible 'causal connection' for his retaliation claim.
Dissenting - Justice Rivera-Soto
No. A police officer does not have an objectively reasonable belief that a department's discretionary policy on resource allocation is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy. The trial court correctly concluded that police departments must have the discretion to set enforcement priorities and allocate limited resources. Allowing a CEPA claim based on a rank-and-file officer's personal disagreement with such discretionary policy decisions would be an unsupportable extension of the statute, enabling any officer to challenge any command decision. The majority's holding improperly substitutes a jury's judgment for that of police leadership and wrongly forces employers to justify every operational decision to every line employee to avoid potential liability.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of CEPA protection for employees, particularly in law enforcement, who object to policies of non-enforcement. It establishes a critical distinction between a mere disagreement over resource allocation, which is a non-actionable management prerogative, and an objection to a perceived total abandonment of the duty to enforce public safety laws, which is protected activity. The ruling empowers employees to challenge policies that effectively nullify criminal statutes, thereby holding public entities accountable for their fundamental enforcement duties. This precedent will likely influence future whistleblower cases where an employee's claim is based on the employer's inaction or policy of non-enforcement, rather than an affirmative illegal act.
Unlock the full brief for Maimone v. City of Atlantic City