Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statements regarding an investigation of an employee were not defamatory because they did not attack her reputation, but only stated the facts
• noting that a term used by Legislature in one place should not be implied in another if excluded
• finding that certain complaints about co-employee activity are protected under CEPA section 3e.(3)
• holding CEPA does not insulate an employee from “discharge or other disciplinary action for reasons unrelated to the complaint”
• determining that co-workers' statements about their unwillingness to work with plaintiff were non-actionable opinions rather than defamatory statements of fact
• holding “that the CEPA prohibits an employer from taking retaliatory action against an employee who has a reasonable basis for objecting to a co-employee’s activity, policy, or practice covered by N.J.S.A. 34:19-3”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).