James Hitesman v. Bridgeway, Inc. (072466)
218 N.J. 8
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Hitesman, a registered nurse at Bridgeway Care Center, was terminated in Jan. 2008 after whistleblowing about infectious disease concerns and contacting government officials and a TV station.
- CEPA claims alleged retaliation for reporting improper quality of patient care (N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(a)(1)) and for actions incompatible with public health policy (N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(c)(3)).
- Plaintiff relied on ANA Code of Ethics and Bridgeway documents (Handbook and Statement of Resident Rights) as authorities supporting his claims.
- Trial court initially allowed CEPA claim on threshold; jury found liability but awarded no damages; Appellate Division reversed, concluding no cognizable CEPA claim absent a valid authority nexus.
- Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that ANA Code, Handbook, and Resident Rights do not provide the required substantial nexus to Bridgeway’s infection-control conduct or to a clear public policy mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ANA Code, Handbook, or Resident Rights provide substantial nexus | Hitesman identified these authorities as standards governing care | These sources do not establish the required standard | Yes, they fail to provide substantial nexus |
| Whether plaintiff reasonably believed Bridgeway violated law or public policy | Belief supported by CDC/state infection-control standards | No adequate authority identified | No substantial nexus established |
| Whether CEPA claims can survive without a valid authority under the statute | CEPA protects whistleblowing based on recognized standards | Plaintiff failed to identify applicable standard | Claims properly dismissed |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying involuntary dismissal | There was substantial evidence of a substantial nexus | Record lacked identifying authority | Correct to grant involuntary dismissal due to lack of nexus |
Key Cases Cited
- Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451 (N.J. 2003) (framework to determine substantial nexus and reasonableness of belief in CEPA claims)
- Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp., 153 N.J. 163 (N.J. 1998) (public policy standard; CEPA interpretation for whistleblowing)
- Klein v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 377 N.J. Super. 28 (App.Div. 2005) (limits CEPA to standards with substantial nexus to care)
- Abbamont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 138 N.J. 405 (N.J. 1994) (public policy and regulatory framework guiding CEPA claims)
- Maw v. Advanced Clinical Communications, 179 N.J. 439 (N.J. 2004) (definition of clear mandate of public policy; distribution of standard)
- Maimone v. City of Atlantic City, 188 N.J. 221 (N.J. 2006) (public policy sources in CEPA analysis)
- Estate of Roach v. TRW, Inc., 164 N.J. 598 (N.J. 2000) (CEPA framework and deference on involuntary dismissal)
- Kalman v. Grand Union Co., 183 N.J. Super. 153 (App.Div. 1982) (early CEPA-like references; ethics code as policy source)
- Holmdel v. N.J. Highway Auth., 190 N.J. 74 (N.J. 2007) (CEPA statutory interpretation guidance)