Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
2010 N.J. LEXIS 1233, 8 A.3d 209, 204 N.J. 239 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining if an employee's taking and use of an employer's confidential documents for a discrimination lawsuit constitutes protected activity under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), courts must apply a flexible, totality of the circumstances balancing test. This test weighs the employee's right to be free from discrimination against the employer's legitimate business and privacy interests.
Facts:
- Joyce Quinlan was the Executive Director of Human Resources for Curtiss-Wright Corporation and had been employed with the company since 1980.
- In 2003, Curtiss-Wright promoted Kenneth Lewis, a male employee Quinlan believed was less qualified and experienced, to a position that made him her supervisor.
- Believing this promotion was an act of gender discrimination, Quinlan consulted an attorney and began reviewing files she could access in her HR capacity.
- Without her attorney's knowledge, she copied over 1,800 pages of company documents, some containing confidential employee information, and gave them to her legal counsel.
- While her lawsuit was pending and she was still employed, Quinlan received a negative performance appraisal for her supervisor, Lewis, in the ordinary course of her duties.
- Believing the appraisal was critical to her case, she copied it and gave it to her attorneys.
- During a deposition of Lewis, Quinlan's attorney confronted him with the copied performance appraisal.
- Shortly after the deposition, Curtiss-Wright terminated Quinlan's employment, stating in a letter that she was fired for the unauthorized taking of confidential company property, which constituted theft.
Procedural Posture:
- Joyce Quinlan filed a complaint against Curtiss-Wright Corporation in a New Jersey trial court, alleging gender discrimination.
- Following her termination, Quinlan amended her complaint to add a count for unlawful retaliation.
- The first jury trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict.
- A second trial resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Quinlan, including substantial compensatory and punitive damages on her retaliation claim.
- The trial court denied Curtiss-Wright's post-trial motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- Curtiss-Wright (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
- The Appellate Division reversed the retaliation verdict and remanded for a new trial, and it vacated the punitive damages award entirely.
- Quinlan (petitioner) filed a petition for certification, which the Supreme Court of New Jersey 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:
Is an employee who copies confidential company documents and provides them to her attorney for use in a discrimination lawsuit engaging in protected activity under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination's anti-retaliation provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hoens
Yes, in certain circumstances, an employee's use of confidential documents to prosecute a discrimination claim can be protected activity. The court established a new seven-factor balancing test to determine whether an employee's conduct in taking or using an employer's documents is protected under the LAD. This test requires a court to consider: (1) how the employee obtained the document; (2) what the employee did with the document; (3) the content of the document and the employer's interest in its confidentiality; (4) whether there was a clear company policy on confidentiality; (5) the document's relevance versus its potential for disruption; (6) the employee's reason for copying the document; and (7) the broader impact of the court's decision on the LAD's remedial purposes and the rights of employers and employees. Applying this test, the court agreed with the trial court's distinction, which allowed the jury to find that while Quinlan's wholesale copying of documents was unprotected, her attorneys' subsequent use of the highly relevant Lewis appraisal, which she obtained in the course of her duties, was protected activity. Therefore, the jury could find Curtiss-Wright's true motive for firing her was retaliation for prosecuting her claim, which is illegal.
Dissenting - Justice Albin
No, the employee's conduct was not protected activity. The distinction between the unprotected 'taking' of the document and the protected 'use' of it is an abstract, hair-splitting distinction that defies common sense. The employer only learned of the taking when the document was used in the deposition, making the two acts 'inextricably intertwined.' The majority's holding encourages employees to engage in 'self-help' discovery by stealing documents rather than using proper legal channels, and it sanctions attorneys using 'pilfered' documents to ambush witnesses. Because Quinlan had access to the civil discovery process, her theft of documents was disloyal, unprotected misconduct for which Curtiss-Wright had a legitimate right to terminate her employment.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant new precedent in New Jersey employment law by creating a nuanced, multi-factor test for analyzing retaliation claims involving employee self-help in evidence gathering. It rejects a bright-line rule that would either grant employees immunity for taking documents or give employers absolute authority to fire them for it. The case underscores the strong remedial purpose of the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), creating a pathway for employees to be protected in limited circumstances, but also puts employees on notice that taking documents is a high-risk activity that may not be protected. The flexible standard ensures that future cases will be highly fact-specific, requiring lower courts to carefully balance competing interests.
