Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
109 N.J. 189, 536 A.2d 237, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 259 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The retaliatory discharge of an at-will employee for seeking to review her personnel file to support a good-faith claim of gender discrimination violates a clear mandate of public policy in New Jersey.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, an at-will employee, alleged she was repeatedly passed over for promotion in favor of less-qualified male candidates.
- Believing she was the victim of gender discrimination, Plaintiff requested to see her personnel records to substantiate her claim.
- Shortly after she requested her records, her employer terminated her employment.
- The employer stated that the reason for Plaintiff's termination was a reorganizational layoff.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued her former employer in the New Jersey trial court, alleging wrongful termination.
- The defendant-employer moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that firing an employee for requesting her personnel file did not violate public policy.
- Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to review the case.
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 retaliatory discharge of an at-will employee for requesting her personnel file to investigate a good-faith belief of gender discrimination violate a clear mandate of public policy in New Jersey?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The retaliatory discharge of an at-will employee for requesting her personnel file to investigate a good-faith belief of gender discrimination violates a clear mandate of public policy. While an employer may generally fire an at-will employee for any reason, an exception exists when the discharge contravenes a clear mandate of public policy, as established in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. New Jersey has a strong public policy against employment discrimination. This policy would be undermined if employees could not inquire into the basis for adverse employment actions without fear of termination. The act of pursuing information relevant to a discriminatory discharge is a protected activity, as it is a necessary first step to substantiating a claim. Therefore, firing an employee for engaging in such an inquiry constitutes a wrongful discharge.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine established in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. It clarifies that 'protected activity' is not limited to filing a formal complaint but also includes preliminary, good-faith investigatory actions, such as requesting personnel files. By protecting employees during the information-gathering phase of a potential discrimination claim, the court makes it more difficult for employers to use summary judgment to dismiss retaliation claims prematurely. This ruling strengthens employee protections and emphasizes the importance of allowing discovery, especially when critical facts are within the employer's exclusive control.
