On November 20, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Court held that there is no bright line rule excluding a municipal tax assessor from protection under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), New Jersey’s whistleblower law. This decision reflects the court’s tendency to conduct fact-based inquiries when hearing CEPA claims, prioritizing the Act’s liberal construction and general principles as opposed to relying on bright line rules or strict labels.
In Obiedzinski v. Township of Tewksbury, 480 N.J. Super. 45 (App. Div. 2024), the trial court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion finding that the plaintiff’s position fell outside of the scope of CEPA. The trial court relied on Casamasino v. City of Jersey City, 304 N.J. Super. 226 (App. Div. 1997) when it determined that plaintiff, an independent tax assessor, could not bring a valid CEPA claim against her employer. In Casamasino, the Court reasoned that an independent tax assessor was not the type of employee that CEPA was intended to protect, due in large part to the “statutorily created job security” the position’s tenure provides.
Unlike the trial court, the Appellate Court’s analysis was based upon several decisions since Casamasino which addressed the definition of an employee under CEPA, using a case-by-case, factor-based analysis. Notably, the Appellate Court discussed D’Annunzio v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 192 N.J. 110 (2007) and Stomel v. City of Camden, 192 N.J. 137 (2007), two cases that employed the Pukowsky test to determine whether a party was an independent contractor or employee for CEPA purposes. These cases provided the Court with sufficient justification to reject the theory that there is a bright line rule preventing independent tax assessors from bringing a valid claim under CEPA.
Ultimately, the Appellate Court determined that plaintiff was entitled to a factor-based inquiry into whether she would qualify as an employee under CEPA and therefore be eligible to receive its protection. While this decision focuses on independent tax assessors, the Court seems to reject the notion that there are bright line bans from CEPA protection. In fact, the Court in Obiedzinski noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed reliance on CEPA’s central principles and its liberal construction. This decision is likely to help other workers who are not employees obtain the protections afforded to employees who blow-the-whistle against their employers.