Donelson v. DuPont Chambers Works
206 N.J. 243
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Seddon, a long-time DuPont employee, reported unsafe conditions in the phosgene operation and unsafe car searches to OSHA, triggering retaliation by DuPont including shifted supervision, attendance restrictions, and layoffs on disability grounds.
- DuPont removed a Guardian Manual reference in the phosgene area after Seddon's safety complaints and Kaiser became his supervisor with increasing scrutiny.
- Seddon claimed retaliation caused a psychiatric injury leading to disability retirement; the trial court allowed recovery of lost wages related to his disability, even without proving constructive discharge.
- The jury found in Seddon’s favor on the CEPA claim, awarding economic damages and punitive damages; the Appellate Division reversed, requiring constructive discharge as a prerequisite for back/front pay, and vacated fees.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, holding that CEPA permits lost wages without proof of constructive discharge when retaliation proximately causes a disability that prevents continued employment; remanded for fee and punitive-damages issues.
- Dissent would limit CEPA remedies to traditional tort-style recoveries and would require constructive discharge, diverging from the majority’s interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CEPA permits lost wages without constructive discharge | Seddon—lost wages available if retaliation caused disability | DuPont—constructive discharge required for CEPA lost wages | Lost wages allowed without constructive discharge; remedy not limited to actual/constructive discharge |
| Scope of CEPA remedies vs. LAD interpretation | CEPA remedies should be broad to deter retaliation | Remedies should reflect LAD-like limits for predictability | CEPA remedies, including lost wages, are not confined to constructive-discharge rules; broad common-law damages apply |
| Proximate causation for lost wages in CEPA context | Retaliation caused disability leading to retirement, justifying damages | Need stricter causation/tactual discharge link | Proximate causation shown; damages for diminished earning capacity permitted under CEPA |
| Effect of legislative history on CEPA damages | History supports no constructive-discharge prerequisite | History supports LAD-like limits | Legislative history does not require a constructive-discharge prerequisite; plain language governs |
| Attorney's fees and punitive damages post-verdict | Fees and punitive damages follow from CEPA victory | Remand necessary for unresolved fee/punitive issues | Remand to address fees and any unaddressed issues; not decided on those points now |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Ctr., 174 N.J. 1 (2002) (constructive discharge standard in LAD context; used to define 'intolerable' conditions and front/back pay framework)
- Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (1980) (created wrongful-discharge remedy for at-will employees; basis for CEPA remedy entitlement)
- Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451 (2003) (CEPA remedial scope; protection against retaliation for reporting illegal activities)
- Barratt v. Cushman & Wakefield of N.J., Inc., 144 N.J. 120 (1996) (CEPA remedial purpose and liberally construed to protect whistle-blowers)
- D'Annunzio v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 192 N.J. 110 (2007) (CEPA scope; statutory interpretation and remedies; relation to public policy)