The U.S. District Court of New Jersey recently reaffirmed that under New Jersey’s whistleblower law, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), a plaintiff asserting that her employer’s conduct is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health must identify the applicable law, rule, or regulation prior to summary judgment. In Tinio v. St. Joseph Regional Medical Center, No. 13-829-JLL-JAD (D.N.J. April 6, 2015), the plaintiff, a former nurse at defendant-hospital, alleged that she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about a lack of patient care associates on the unit to which she was assigned. The plaintiff identified accreditation guidelines—that she believed the defendant violated—for the first time in her opposition brief to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the plaintiff had not engaged in any protected whistleblowing activity because she failed to identify a law, rule, or regulation that she reasonably believed the defendant had violated when she initially complained, in her complaint, or when pressed at her deposition.
Canada’s Emergency Wage Subsidy Program: A $71 Billion Investment in Employers During the COVID-19 Crisis
On April 1, 2020, Canada’s Minister of Finance outlined the federal government’s plans for a comprehensive wage subsidy plan that, in total, would put as much as $71 Billion (CAD) back into the pockets of participating employers. The stated purpose of the plan is to maximize the ability of employers to maintain employment relationships with their employees during this difficult time.
In this case the plaintiff sued her prospective employer for withdrawing a job offer after a background check was conducted. Affirming the doctrine of employment at-will in New Jersey, the Appellate Division upheld dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint alleging promissory estoppel, tortious interference with employment, and fraud, where it was undisputed that the prospective employer’s offer was for employment at-will, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she suffered any detriment in reliance on the promise of employment, or that the prospective employer violated any protectable right or materially misrepresented facts.
The federal appellate court with jurisdiction over South Carolina recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by an employee who was reassigned to a new position after returning from medical leave. According to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the employee’s claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) failed because his new position differed from his pre-leave job in only its intangible aspects. This is a positive ruling for South Carolina employers as it provides guidance on what constitutes an “equivalent job” under the FMLA.