The legal department consists of the following departments: After discovery, the defendants sought summary judgment. The court granted the request in an oral submission. Innes J. reviewed the undisputed facts and concluded that Horizon`s submissions to DOBI accurately reflected the company`s prompt payment penalties. In addition, he noted that the applicant`s reports were internal documents and therefore the proposed amendment did not show “illegal or fraudulent activities that harmed the public.” Given that the activity complained of had no public implications, but was a private dispute between employer and employee, Justice Innes found that the applicant could not prove a prima facie case under CEPA and dismissed the applicant`s complaint.4 We first look at the standards for reprisal under CEPA. “CEPA`s goal is to protect and encourage employees to report illegal or unethical activities in the workplace and to deter public and private sector employers from engaging in such behaviour.” Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp., 153 N.J. 163, 179 (1998) (cited Abbamont v. Piscataway Vol. of Educ., 138 N.J. 405, 431 (1994)); Donelson v.
Dupont Chambers Works, 412 N.J. Super. 17, 29 (App. Div.), certif. 203 N.J. 95 (2010). As remedial legislation, CEPA must be interpreted generously to achieve its purpose. Abbamont, op. cit. cit., 138 n.j., p. 431.
The core value that permeates CEPA is the legislative determination to protect from reprisal employees who “believe that the public interest outweighs the interests of the organization they serve, publicly denounce [because] the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activities.” Ralph Nader et al., Whistleblowing: The Report of the Conference on Professional Responsibility (1972). We typically review federal and state constitutions, laws, regulations and administrative decisions, court decisions, and codes of professional ethics to determine whether certain corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful activities violate a clear public policy mandate, but these sources are not necessarily exclusive. A salutary limiting principle is that the offending activity must present a risk of public harm, not just private harm or harm only to the injured worker. In May 2005, at the request of Horizon`s CEO, the applicant and its employees prepared a report for internal use analyzing the “root cause” of the “management complaints” received during the first quarter of 2005. The plaintiff described a complaint as any complaint made by a customer or health care provider to a Horizon employee about their experience with Horizon. The purpose of the report was to analyze why customers contacted Horizon executives to complain about the service they received or difficulties with a complaint. The requester`s report should also focus on “understanding the reasons for complaints and attempting to minimize them.” There is no evidence in this file that false or fraudulent information was disseminated to DOBI or any other public body. Although the applicant`s superiors asked her to change her findings, she decided not to do so. In addition, all of these reports were for Horizon`s internal use. We conclude that the claimant`s allegations – that Horizon will not be able to improve its service or prevent late payment of claims because manipulated data or Horizon policyholder premiums are affected by the manipulation of these reports – are nothing more than pure speculation. Similarly, no evidence is adduced to support the applicant`s hypothesis that manipulation of the reports could lead to an increase in premiums for Horizon`s policyholders.
See Littman v. Firestone Rubber & Tire Co., 715 F. Supp. 90, 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (review of similar state law and conclusion that “the activity which, according to the plaintiff, revealed fraud directed exclusively against the corporation, with the participation only indirectly affected, is not the type of activity that the law was intended to combat or the disclosure of which was intended to protect”). One of the plaintiff`s responsibilities as Horizon`s DOC was to provide for prompt payment penalties, i.e. assessed interest payments on claims if Horizon failed to comply with the insurance obligation under N.J.S.A. 17B:30-32.2 The Department of Services was directly responsible for prompt payment penalties, and all payments came from the service department`s budget.
In addition, all paid reviews were reported to the New Jersey Department of Banking, Insurance (DOBI) in accordance with N.J.S.A. 17B:30-30. Although a claimant is not required to prove that the employer`s conduct was contrary to public policy, a complaint under paragraph (c)(3) must “identify a law, regulation, rule or public policy closely related to the conduct complained of.” Dzwonar, op. cit. cit., 177 n.j., p. 463. Complaints about private harm do not trigger CEPA protection. Maw v.
Advanced Clinical Commc`ns, Inc., 179 N.J. 439, 443-46 (2004); Mehlman, op. cit. cit., 153 n.J., p. 188. 2 Insurance practices are governed by the laws set out in Title 17B.
