Benjamin Blackburn v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Patricia Knowles

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that employee’s statement was not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) in absence of evidence that employee was speaking for employer on matter within scope of agency or employment
• holding that even if the plaintiff “had presented sufficient evidence to meet his prima facie burden at the summary judgment stage” that summary judgment was still appropriate in favor of the employer because the plaintiff did not present evidence of pretextual termination
• stating that CEPA does not shield “chronic complainers” or “alarmists” who “constantly declar[e] that illegal activity is afoot-or . . . is about to be afoot”
• stating “we have some doubts as to the correctness of the District Court’s conclusion” that plaintiff “had not shown that he had engaged in protected whistleblowing activity”
• describing a § 1441(b) violation as a waiv- able removal defect
• “The New Jersey courts have repeatedly held that CEPA was enacted 'to protect employees from retaliatory actions by employers.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).