Retaliation / Whistleblowing

Which State’s Discrimination Law Covers a New Jersey Resident Working Out of State?

August 31, 2026 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last updated August 31, 2026 · Reviewed by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A New Jersey appeals court has held that a New Jersey resident who worked out of his employer’s Connecticut office could not sue under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, even though he spent his final months on the job working remotely from his New Jersey home. Redmond v. BDO USA, LLP, No. A-2310-24 (App. Div. Aug. 14, 2026), turned on where the job was based and w bigstock-Serious-Millennial-African-ame-242492395 here the alleged discrimination occurred, rather than on where the employee lived. The opinion is unpublished, so it binds only the parties and is not precedent for any other court.

Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C. represents New Jersey employees in employment discrimination matters. We recognize that, since so many employees are now working from home for employers based in other states, the question of which state’s employment law applies arises often. Although the law is still developing on this issue, where the employee physically works, and where the unlawful discriminatory decision was made, rather than where the employee lives, generally decides which state’s discrimination statute applies.

The Facts of Redmond v. BDO USA

Charles Redmond, who is Black, was hired in January 2018 as a senior tax accountant in the Stamford, Connecticut office of BDO USA. BDO is an accounting firm headquartered outside New Jersey, but with an office in Woodbridge. Mr. Redmond lived in New Jersey. He rented an apartment in Connecticut while he worked for BDO in Stamford.

Mr. Redmond twice received a “Very Successful” performance rating. However, after Heide Moeller became the managing partner of BDO’s Stamford office in November 2019, his reviews suddenly turned negative.

NJ Appellate Court Reinstates Whistleblower and Retaliation Claims Following Early-Stage Dismissal

May 6, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A bigstock-Lovely-nurse-helping-old-woman-426080825 recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division serves as a strong reminder to employers: workers who speak up about unsafe conditions or violations of state regulations cannot be retaliated against. In Hussain v. Allies, Inc., the court revived a former group home manager’s whistleblower and wrongful discharge claims after she was fired shortly after raising concerns about staff training, resident care, and wage issues. The ruling clarifies important protections under New Jersey’s whistleblower law—and reinforces that workers cannot be punished for trying to report violations of the law.

At Rabner Baumgart Ben-Asher & Nirenberg, P.C., we help workers across Bergen County and throughout New Jersey assert their rights under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), especially when employers retaliate after health and safety concerns are raised.

What Happened in This Case?

Sharon Hussain was employed as a Support Manager at a group home operated by Allies, Inc. Her job involved overseeing staff responsible for the care of individuals with developmental disabilities. During her employment, she voiced serious concerns to her supervisors, including that:

staff-to-resident ratios were dangerously low and inconsistent with state regulations.
employees lacked proper medical training, such as how to check residents’ blood sugar.
training for care staff relied primarily on videos and did not meet hands-on requirements mandated by law.

Her concerns were based on regulations in New Jersey’s Administrative Code, specifically N.J.A.C. 10:44A-2.7, which outlines training requirements for staff caring for developmentally disabled residents.

New Jersey Appellate Division Clarifies Procedural Requirements in CEPA Case

January 6, 2025 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent unpublished decision, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, addressed a Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) claim involving allegations of a retaliatory failure to promote within a police department. The case revolved around whether an employee of the Haddonfield Police Department, Michael Caruso, was denied a promotion to lieutenant due to his whistleblowing activities.

The Facts of the Case

In Caruso v. Borough of Haddonfield, the plaintiff, a police officer, alleged he was unlawfully denied a promotion to lieutenant in retaliation for his whistleblowing activities, in violation CEPA. Caruso contended that he reported unlawful conduct within the department. Specifically, he claimed to have raised concerns about violations of departmental policies, misuse of authority, and actions he perceived as undermining public trust in law enforcement. According to his claims, these protected activities caused his employer to retaliate by refusing to promote him despite his qualifications and eligibility.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Borough, finding that Mr. Caruso failed to establish two critical elements of a CEPA claim:

Protected Whistleblowing Activity: The court determined there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the employee engaged in whistleblowing activities as defined by CEPA.
Causal Connection: The court concluded there was no evidence linking the alleged whistleblowing to the decision to deny the promotion.

The employee then appealed the case to the Appellate Division.

Teacher’s Objection to Inadequate Discipline of Student for Threatening Violence Can be Protected by CEPA

November 12, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent unpublished opinion, New Jersey’s Appellate Division found a teacher’s objection that his school did not sufficiently discipline a student for threatening to shoot another student could be protected from retaliation by the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”).

CEPA is a broad New Jersey whistleblower law that prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee for, among other things, objecting to an activity or practice of the employer that the employee reasonably believes violates a law, a rule promulgated pursuant to law, or is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning public health, safety or welfare or protection of the environment.

Phillip Eisenstein is a physical education teacher for the New York Avenue School in Atlantic City. He witnessed a student, K.D., bullying other students. After Mr. Eisenstein intervened, K.D. threatened to get his uncle’s gun and come back the next day to shoot one of the other students. Mr. Eisenstein reported this to the school’s principal, who said he would handle it.

Court Recognizes New Jersey Law Against Discrimination’s Broad Definition of Disability

August 1, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In a recent unpublished decision, New Jersey’s Appellate Division make it clear that an employee does not have to have a severe or permanent impairment to have a viable disability discrimination to be protected by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

The case was filed by Bart Algozzini, who worked for DGMB Casino, LLC doing business as Resorts Casino Hotel (“Resorts”) as its Director of Slot Operations. Mr. Algozzini took a medical leave after he suffered second and third-degree burns over seventy percent of his body after his boat exploded. He was hospitalized for a month, during which he was placed in a medically-induced coma for more than two weeks. After leaving the hospital, he was in a rehab facility for a week-and-a-half, followed by over three months of outpatient physical therapy sessions.

While Mr. Algozzini was on his medical leave, Resorts eliminated his position as the Director of Slot Operations and instead created two new positions: Slot Service Manager and Slot Technical Manager. Resorts gave Mr. Algozzini the position of Slot Service Manager, a job with fewer responsibilities and that paid $23,000 less per year than his former position as its Director of Slot Operations. Resorts did not eliminate any other positions at that time.

Taxation of Employment Law Settlements

July 6, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

When you settle an employment law case, typically most or all of the money you receive will be taxable. Nonetheless, it is both common and important to discuss the tax allocation as part of the settlement negotiation, including what portion will be reported on an IRS form W-2, and what portion will be reported on a 1099.

While I am an employment lawyer rather than a tax expert, below is my understanding regarding the taxability of employment law settlements under federal law. These issues can be complex and have significant consequences to you, so you should consult with a tax expert before you make any decisions.

W-2 Payments: Lost Wages

Timing Between Protected Activity and Adverse Employment Action Supports Whistleblower Claim

June 4, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent unpublished opinion from New Jersey’s Appellate Division overturned a trial court decision dismissing his whistleblower claim under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”). The case serves as a reminder that close timing between a legally-protected activity and an adverse employment action can be powerful evidence to support a retaliation claim.

Joseph Silvestri was the Director of Information Technology (“IT”) for the Borough of Ridgefield. When he discovered that someone had tampered with the Lightning Alert System at Willis Park, he reported it to the Ridgefield Police Department. Paul Schaeffer, who is friends with a Ridgefield Councilman, Javier Acosta, was charged with tampering with the Lightning Alert System. Mr. Silvestri subsequently was subpoenaed to testify in Mr. Schaeffer’s municipal court case, and was present in court for the trial, but did not actually end up testifying.

Shortly thereafter, the Ridgefield Council President, Russell Castelli, told Mr. Silvestri that he is not entitled to receive overtime compensation because he is the head of the IT Department. Until then, Mr. Silvestri had been eligible to receive overtime compensation for approximately 20 years. According to Mr. Silvesti, Councilman Acosta caused Ridgefield to stop compensating him for his overtime.

Employees Can Proceed with Claim Employer Sued Them for Alleging Discrimination

February 15, 2024 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recognizes that an employer filing a lawsuit against an employee because he asserted a discrimination claim against it can be an act of unlawful retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

The retaliation claim was asserted by Jean-Claude Franchitti and Vartan Piroumian, two former employees of Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation and Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation. Mr. Franchitti was Cognizant’s Chief Architect and Assistant Vice President, and Mr. Piroumian was its Principal Architect and Enterprise Architect.

Mr. Franchitti and Mr. Piroumian each previously asserted discrimination and retaliation claims against Cognizant. Mr. Franchitti filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) asserting age discrimination, national origin discrimination and retaliation, as well as a subsequent lawsuit in California asserting the same claims, a claim under the False Claims Act alleging the company was engaging in visa fraud, and a lawsuit in New York alleging retaliation. Mr. Piroumian has filed two Charges of Discrimination against Cognizant with the EEOC alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation.

Court Reinstates Employee’s Retaliation Lawsuit, Finding Employer Could Have Identified Her as Anonymous Whistleblower

October 23, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A new decision from New Jersey’s Appellate Division recognizes that an employer can be liable for retaliating against an employee who filed an anonymous whistleblower complaint if the evidence supports the inference that it could have realized she was the one who filed the complaint.

For 14 years, Carol Smith worked for Konica Minolta Business Solutions (“KMBS”), primarily as a sales representative. In 2018, Ms. Smith reported to her supervisors that over a million dollars of equipment had been shipped to a warehouse, and KMBS had recorded it as installed and paid employees a commission for selling that equipment, but the equipment actually remained in the warehouse and KMBS was improperly using it as collateral for bank loans.

Ms. Smith’s supervisors failed to address her complaint, and instead began harassing her. Accordingly, she eventually reported the fraudulent activity anonymously, through KMBS’ employee whistleblower hotline.

Resigning to Avoid Participating in Illegal Activity Can Be Protected Under CEPA

August 1, 2023 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division decision recognizes that, under the right circumstances an employee can be protected by the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) when she resigns because she is not willing to participate in her employer’s illegal conduct. CEPA is New Jersey’s whistleblower law, which many courts have described to be the broadest such law in the nation.

Hope Moser worked for the Streamwood Company as the assistant property manager at the Madison Court apartments. Her immediate supervisor, Scott Leonard, was Streamwood’s regional manager and the son of Streamwood’s owner.

In January 2021, Mr. Leonard told Ms. Moser that she should check “no” on all housing screening forms in response to the question whether the form was being completed as a Section 8 housing application. Ms. Moster objected because she believed doing so would violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), which prohibits housing discrimination against prospective Section 8 tenants.