11-30-07 A-2604-06T2
Plaintiff employee of defendant non-profit animal shelter
expressed reservations to his supervisor, and through him, to
the owner, about adopting out a Doberman that had attacked its
previous owner, who then paid the shelter to euthanize it.
Instead of putting the animal to sleep, and despite plaintiff's
reservations, defendant approved the adoption, only to have the
Doberman maul its new owner to death eleven days later.
Plaintiff cooperated with defendant's internal investigation by
outside counsel and shortly thereafter, he was terminated. His
CEPA lawsuit was dismissed on directed verdict after plaintiff's
case-in-chief, the trial judge finding that plaintiff did not
have a reasonable belief that defendant's conduct violated any
public policy (N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(c)(3)), or any law (N.J.S.A.
34:19-3(c)(1) and (a)(1)) inasmuch as defendant, as a non-profit
entity, was exempt from the provisions of the Consumer Fraud Act
(CFA).
We reversed and remanded for trial, finding that for
purposes of section (c)(3), our Legislature, in a number of
enactments, has recognized the serious and widespread threat
that unprovoked dog attacks pose to the safety and welfare of
our citizens, and that there was proof that plaintiff had an
objectively reasonable belief that defendant's decision to adopt
out this dog was inherently incompatible with New Jersey's
public policy.
As to plaintiff's claim under section 3(c)(1) and (a)(1),
the fact that defendant may not be subject to the CFA is not
dispositive. A CEPA plaintiff need not show his or her employer
actually violated a specific law, rule or regulation, only that
plaintiff reasonably believes this to be the case. It suffices
that from the proofs here there appears an arguably reasonable
basis for believing that defendant engaged in activity violative
"of a law . . . involving deception of, or misrepresentation to,
any . . . customer . . . of the employer . . . ." N.J.S.A.
34:19-3(a)(1).
