Employment LawBig Verdict For Janitor Who Complained About Broken Toilets

Big Verdict For Janitor Who Complained About Broken Toilets

-

- Advertisment -spot_img

Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Division’s decision to let stand a $194,000 jury verdict in favor of a part-time janitor who complained about broken toilets and a burnt out light-bulb.  

In addition to holding that the janitor was a legitimate “whistle-blower” under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), the Supreme Court also ordered that the case go back down to trial to decide how much punitive damages and attorneys’ fees should be imposed against the employer.  

CEPA is a statute which protects employees from retaliatory action, such as termination, based upon an employee’s disclosure—or threat to disclose—a practice of the employer which the employee reasonably believes is in violation of the law.  

In Hernandez v. Montville Township Bd. of Ed., 179 N.J. 81 (2004), the plaintiff-janitor observed that a clogged toilet and a missing light bulb in an exit sign were not remedied for approximately one week.  He apprized his immediate supervisors and tried to speak to the Superintendent of schools about it.  At around the same time, he was terminated for excessive tardiness.  

After the jury came back with a plaintiff’s verdict along with an award for $44,000 in lost wages and $150,000 for emotional distress, the trial court judge entered a JNOV, nullifying the jury’s decision.  The trial judge lamented that “I should have never let [the case] go to the jury.”  

Concerning the whistle-blowing disclosures of the plaintiff, the judge remarked “talk about trivial . . . it is trivialization beyond belief.”  

Nonetheless, a divided Supreme Court held that the trial judge should not have negated the jury’s award and concluded that the employer’s failure to respond quickly enough to unclog toilets and change a light bulb were sufficient bases upon which the plaintiff could articulate a CEPA claim because they dealt with issues of health and safety.    

In a stinging dissent, Supreme Court Justice LaVecchia noted that CEPA was intended to protect employees who try to expose “illegal activities.” 

He believed that the employer’s failure to respond quickly to unclog toilets and replace a light bulb should not be viewed as a statutorily-recognized “activity, policy or practice” of the employer about which an employee could blow the whistle.  

The dissent further criticized the majority opinion because the plaintiff, who was a janitor, was the person at the school who was responsible for fixing the toilets and replacing the light bulb.  Thus, the plaintiff was rewarded with a substantial jury verdict for having essentially complained about his own dereliction of duty.

The Hernandez case represents a further liberalization of what kinds of disclosures will be deemed “protected” under New Jersey law and makes it more difficult for employers to distinguish between an employee’s ordinary griping and statutorily-protected whistle-blowing. 

Disclaimer:  The contents of this site, such as text, graphics, images, and other materials contained on the page are for general information purposes only. This article is not a substitute for professional advice on the topics mentioned. This article does not create any form of offers to any legal or professional service. The site assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents. In no event shall the site be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages or any damages whatsoever, whether in an action to follow the content, negligence or other tort, arising out of the use of the contents of the article. The blog reserves the right to make additions, deletions, or modifications to the contents at any time without prior notice. The site does not warrant that the site is free of viruses or other harmful components. It may contain views and opinions which are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other author, agency, organization, employer or company, including the site itself. It also does not provide professional advice, diagnosis, treatment or any legal service. The site does not endorse official procedures, legal actions or qualified services and the use of its contents are solely at your own risk.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

Divorce & Health Insurance

Recently, I had a question from someone who was going through a divorce and was concerned about lost health...

Divorce & Health Insurance

Recently, I had a question from someone who was going through a divorce and was concerned about lost health...

Dissolution by Affidavit – Personal Appearance Not Required

The elimination of the requirement of personal appearance for hearing in Missouri dissolution of marriage actions arose out of,...

Discover The Nine Vital Questions You Need To Ask Before Hiring Your Personal Injury Lawyer

Once you know the right questions to ask, hiring your personal injury lawyer is not only easy, but you...
- Advertisement -spot_imgspot_img

Disciplining And Firing Employees

Perception is Reality – Discipline with Care! Disciplining and firing employees is one of the most crucial areas for consideration...

Dental And Medical Collection Legal Guidelines

Every medical and dental practice has to deal with patients who do not pay. If it doesn't deal with...

Must read

Deeds of Variation – Are They Justified?

Deciding to make a Will and then actually putting...

Courtroom FEA: But how does FEA work?

Many legal professionals are exposed to Finite Element Analysis...
- Advertisement -spot_imgspot_img

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you