Battaglia v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
214 N.J. 518
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Battaglia, a long-time UPS employee, was demoted in Sept. 2005 after disputes over his conduct and complaints about coworkers.
- Plaintiff alleged the demotion was a retaliatory response to his complaints about DeCraine’s sexually inappropriate remarks and about credit-card practices.
- UPS contended the demotion was justified by policy violations including confidentiality breaches, abusive conduct, and insubordination.
- The trial produced a jury verdict for Battaglia on CEPA and LAD claims, with substantial damages; the court entered remittitur reducing emotional-distress damages.
- Appellate Division reversed parts of the verdict (notably LAD and emotional-distress aspects) and the case rose to the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification and broader review.
- The Court addresses LAD, CEPA, implied-contract, and emotional-distress issues, and clarifies standards for proof,jury instruction, and remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEPA elements sufficiency | Battaglia reasonably believed fraud via credit-card practices; causal link via supervisor actions | Claim insufficient; letter did not allege credit-card fraud; no direct causation | CEPA verdict reversed on sufficiency and charging error |
| LAD protected activity scope | Battaglia’s complaints about DeCraine’s language and affair were protected | Appellate panel correctly narrowed protected activity to actual discrimination/hostile environment | LAD verdict reinstated; complaints protected broadly as remedial statute |
| Emotional distress damages proof | No expert needed; future damages permissible under LAD/CEPA with lay proof | Future damages require permanency proven by expert; life-expectancy feature improperly included | Emotional-distress award for future damages improper; remittitur affirmed/remanded for reconsideration |
| Implied-contract claim viability | Manual language creates contractual rights | Disclaimers plain and promissory; no contractual rights | Implied-contract claim affirmed as dismissible; damages co-extensive with CEPA/LAD verdicts |
| Jury-charge adequacy and waiver | Trial court properly instructed CEPA scope; no waiver of objections | Charge overly broad; objections not properly preserved | CEPA charge error; remanded/ vacated appropriate; waiver rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Roach v. TRW, Inc., 164 N.J. 598 (2000) (fraud-based CEPA claim; reasonable belief standard; supervisor ratification)
- Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451 (2004) (CEPA elements; causal link via conduct and protected activity)
- Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp., 153 N.J. 163 (1998) (CEPA remedial scope; liberal construction)
- Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 204 N.J. 239 (2010) (LAD purposes; discrimination focus; good-faith belief not strict proof)
- Lehmann v. Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (1993) (broad remedial purpose of LAD; discrimination as societal harm)
- Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (1995) (emotional distress in LAD without strict expert proof)
- Coll v. Sherry, 29 N.J. 166 (1959) (prospective damages require reasonable probability)
- Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (2011) (damages must avoid speculation; permanency proof)
- Nicosia v. Wakefern Food Corp., 136 N.J. 401 (1994) (contractual rights via manuals; prominence/disclaimer considerations)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011) (cat's-paw theory; employer liability for biased supervisor)