Estate of Roach v. Trw, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that section 3c(l) of CEPA “does not require that the activity complained of ... be an actual violation of a law or regulation”
• holding that section 3c(1) of CEPA “does not require that the activity complained of ... be an actual violation of a law or regulation”
• holding that where a person takes an adverse employment action against the plaintiff based on a negative report from a second person with a retaliatory motive, the jury can infer that the plaintiff suffered retaliation under CEPA
• commenting that complaints about co-employees’ extended lunch breaks or personal telephone calls at work would not be protected under CEPA
• explaining fact finder may infer CEPA’s causal connection “based on the surrounding circumstances”
• “Examining whether a retaliatory motive existed, jurors may infer a causal connection based on the surrounding circumstances.” (citing Romano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 665 A.2d 1139 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).