JEFFREY SAUTER VS. COLTS NECK VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANYNO. 2 (L-2637-13, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
170 A.3d 351
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2017Background
- Jeffrey Sauter, a long‑time volunteer and life member of Colts Neck Volunteer Fire Company No. 2, was voted out of membership after complaints about his conduct and letters he wrote challenging the company's insurance claim and fundraising/legal reimbursements.
- Sauter had a LOSAP account (a deferred retirement award for volunteers) with several thousand dollars payable when he turns fifty‑five; he was otherwise a full‑time employee of the Monmouth County Sheriff’s Office.
- After internal complaints and hearings, the membership voted 14–8 to deny reinstatement; Sauter sued alleging CEPA, LAD (withdrawn), and defamation claims.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court dismissed the CEPA and remaining claims, finding Sauter was not an "employee" entitled to CEPA protection.
- On appeal, Sauter argued LOSAP benefits constituted "remuneration" making him an employee under CEPA, and urged broader public‑policy expansion akin to LAD case law; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sauter is an "employee" under CEPA (N.J.S.A. 34:19‑2b) | LOSAP benefits constitute "other remuneration," so volunteer status is within CEPA | CEPA requires services performed "for wages or other remuneration" in an employment relationship; LOSAP does not make a volunteer an employee | Not an employee; LOSAP does not convert voluntary service into an employment relationship for CEPA |
| Whether CEPA should be liberally interpreted or expanded to cover volunteers | CEPA is remedial and should be construed broadly; courts have extended CEPA to nontraditional workers | CEPA’s text and purpose protect workers who risk their livelihood; volunteers lack that vulnerability and are excluded | Declined to expand CEPA; statute’s plain language and purpose preclude volunteers |
| Whether Pukowsky test or economic‑reality factors support CEPA coverage | Applying Pukowsky factors would show employer control and integral role, supporting coverage | Most Pukowsky factors (payment, termination, retirement, intent, taxes) weigh against employee status | Pukowsky analysis overall disfavors employee status; lack of remuneration and intent dispositive |
| Whether LAD precedent treating volunteers as "employees" requires similar CEPA treatment | Cases holding volunteers employees under LAD (Hebard, Blair) mean CEPA should likewise cover volunteers | LAD and CEPA define "employee" differently; LAD is broader and serves different purposes | Rejected; LAD’s broader definition does not control CEPA interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 158 N.J. 404 (discussing CEPA’s purpose to protect employees who report illegal workplace activities)
- Abbamont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 138 N.J. 405 (explaining CEPA’s remedial goal to protect vulnerable employees)
- D'Annunzio v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 192 N.J. 110 (endorsement of Pukowsky factors to identify nontraditional employees under CEPA)
- Feldman v. Hunterdon Radiological Assocs., 187 N.J. 228 (analysis of whether a worker falls within CEPA’s protected class)
- Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (common‑law wrongful discharge principle underlying CEPA)
- Pukowsky v. Caruso, 312 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div.) (twelve‑factor hybrid test used in CEPA analyses)
- Vogt v. Belmar, 14 N.J. 195 (characterizing volunteer firefighter relationship as gratuitous and not master‑servant)
- Hebard v. Basking Ridge Fire Co. No. 1, 164 N.J. Super. 77 (App. Div.) (holding volunteer fire company may be an "employer" under LAD)