HO-HO-KUS, INC. v. SUCHARSKI
2:23-cv-01677
| D.N.J. | Apr 16, 2024Background
- Steven Sucharski, former President of Ho-Ho-Kus, Inc. (HHK), alleges he faced retaliation after objecting to allegedly unlawful business practices ordered by HHK owner, Tom Nepola, including noncompliance with manufacturing standards key to federal contracts.
- Sucharski claims he was demoted, isolated, pressured to sign an onerous confidentiality agreement, and ultimately terminated after refusing to endorse practices he viewed as unsafe, unlawful, or deceptive, particularly related to aerospace industry audits and product certifications.
- After his termination, Sucharski, with his wife Janeen, started Saje Aerospace, Inc., which subsequently became the target of public defamation by HHK via LinkedIn and statements to major aerospace customers, alleging Sucharski misappropriated confidential information.
- HHK moved to dismiss Sucharski and Saje’s counterclaims under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and defamation, arguing insufficient pleading and lack of damages allegation.
- The counterclaims detail a sequence of alleged retaliation, including refusing to fire employees who objected to HHK orders, demotion without resources, forced agreement signing without time to consult counsel, and post-termination public disparagement impacting Saje’s business opportunities.
Issues
| Issue | Sucharski’s Argument | HHK’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEPA Retaliation | Sufficient pleading: Refused unlawful/unsafe orders & suffered retaliation | Failure to plead actual legal violation or protected activity | Sufficiently pleaded; liberal construction applies |
| Causation | Temporal proximity & pattern support link between whistleblowing and adverse acts | No causal link; actions not due to protected conduct | Adequate allegations to infer causation |
| Defamation | Specifically identified false statements harmed Saje’s business | No special damages alleged; vague statements | Pleading is sufficient at this stage |
| Request for Legal Counsel | Retaliation for seeking to consult counsel, a public policy right | Not actionable under CEPA/law | Sufficiently pleaded as protected activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 828 A.2d 893 (N.J. 2003) (sets out CEPA pleadings standard and liberal construction)
- Abbamont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 650 A.2d 958 (N.J. 1994) (CEPA to be construed broadly in favor of whistleblowers)
- Young v. Schering Corp., 645 A.2d 1238 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1994) (CEPA covers objections/refusals to participate in conduct reasonably believed unlawful)
- Red Hawk Fire & Sec., LLC v. Siemens Indus. Inc., 449 F. Supp. 3d 449 (D.N.J. 2020) (defamation claim requirements at motion to dismiss stage)
- Robles v. U.S. Env't Universal Servs., Inc., [citation="469 F. App'x 104"] (3d Cir. 2012) (causation in CEPA claims may be inferred from timeline and retaliation pattern)