COHEN v. BH MEDIA GROUP, INC., 419 F.Supp.3d 831

Background

Plaintiff Lynda Cohen, a long‑time staff writer at the Atlantic City Press (owned by BH Media), objected to new workplace rules (a mandatory unpaid one‑hour Lunch Policy and a Dress Policy) and reported related concerns to supervisors.
The Press implemented an electronic timekeeping system (Dayforce); Cohen was trained but did not always record hours and received written warnings for failing to enter time.
Between Dec. 2015 and July 2016 Cohen was disciplined for conduct at a Dayforce training, alleged missed/late stories, communication failures, and reluctance to take a concert assignment; she was terminated on July 5, 2016.
Cohen sued under the FLSA and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (unpaid overtime and retaliation), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) (discrimination and retaliation), and CEPA (whistleblower retaliation).
The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part: it denied summary judgment as to unpaid‑wages (FLSA/NJWHL) and Cohen’s CEPA claim; it granted summary judgment dismissing Cohen’s FLSA retaliation claim, both NJLAD claims, and her request for punitive damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unpaid overtime (FLSA & NJWHL)	Cohen says she worked through unpaid lunch periods and regularly worked >40 hours (breaking news duties) and was not paid for some hours.	Employer contends Cohen was paid for hours she recorded, had obligation to record hours, and was paid overtime on multiple occasions.	Denied for summary judgment: factual disputes exist about whether employer knew or should have known Cohen worked uncompensated overtime and whether policies discouraged accurate reporting.
FLSA/NJWHL retaliation	Cohen contends her objections to the Lunch Policy and comments at the Dayforce training were protected activity and led to discipline/termination.	Employer says Cohen's complaints were not sufficiently formal to invoke FLSA protection and discipline was non‑adverse or unrelated to complaints.	Granted for summary judgment: court finds Cohen’s statements did not provide fair notice of FLSA claims and insufficient causation to connect complaints to termination.
CEPA (whistleblower)	Cohen argues she engaged in protected activity by objecting to the Dress Policy as discriminatory (and by other disclosures) and was terminated in retaliation.	Employer contends Cohen did not reasonably believe policies violated law, and termination was for legitimate, non‑retaliatory reasons (performance, policy violations).	Denied for summary judgment: court finds Cohen’s Dress‑policy complaint qualifies as CEPA protected activity and there are triable issues about causation and pretext.
NJLAD discrimination & retaliation	Cohen claims sex discrimination (Dress Policy and alleged preferential assignments) and retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination.	Employer argues Dress Policy was lawful, revisions addressed complaints, no comparator evidence of sex‑based disparate treatment, and NYLAD retaliation duplicates CEPA.	Granted for summary judgment: discrimination claim dismissed (no evidentiary basis); NJLAD retaliation claim dismissed as duplicative of CEPA (CEPA subsumes).
Punitive damages	Cohen seeks punitive damages on her CEPA claim.	Employer says no evidence of malice, willful indifference, or upper‑management participation to support punitive damages.	Granted for summary judgment: punitive damages stricken—record lacks evidence of egregious conduct or willful indifference by upper management.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine‑issue standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (inferential burdens at summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for retaliation/discrimination)
Kasten v. Saint–Gobain Performance Plastics Co., 563 U.S. 1 (scope of protected activity under FLSA anti‑retaliation)
Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp., 675 F.3d 249 (FLSA savings clause and state‑law claims not preempted)
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66 (FLSA substantive protections cannot be contracted away)
Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys., 711 F.3d 106 (pleading standard for FLSA overtime claims)
Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., 109 F.3d 173 (temporal proximity and causation in retaliation claims)
Blackburn v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 179 F.3d 81 (CEPA context and pretext analysis)
Conoshenti v. Public Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (elements of FLSA retaliation claim)
Kolstad v. ADA, 527 U.S. 526 (employer good‑faith efforts limit punitive damages)
Abbamont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 138 N.J. 405 (punitive damages and upper‑management participation under NJ law)
Longo v. Pleasure Prods., Inc., 215 N.J. 48 (definition of upper management for punitive damages under NJ law)