Schmidt v. CELGENE CORP.
425 N.J. Super. 600
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- Schmidt, a Texas resident, was employed by Celgene, a Delaware corporation with NJ HQ, and performed work largely in Texas.
- Celgene and Caremark had compliance concerns about Caremark's adverse-event reporting to the FDA; Schmidt was tasked to ensure prompt reporting.
- Schmidt alleged his supervisor retaliated against him for enforcing reporting compliance and raising concerns.
- Schmidt was reassigned, later relieved of Caremark duties, and ultimately terminated; he filed CEPA and contract claims in Texas in 2008.
- Texas court initially applied Texas law and required amendment to exclude CEPA; it later reversed to apply Texas law on the dispute.
- Schmidt then filed a New Jersey CEPA complaint in 2010, asserting retaliation under CEPA, while Texas litigation remained ongoing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CEPA's one-year limit bar NJ CEPA claim? | Schmidt argues tolling or substantial compliance save the claim. | Celgene argues strict application of CEPA's one-year limit. | CEPA time bar applies; tolling not permitted. |
| Are substantial compliance principles applicable here? | Schmidt contends Texas filing tolled NJ limitations via substantial compliance. | Celgene contends no tolling given competing forum and merits. | Not applicable; not sufficient to overcome time bar. |
| Is equitable tolling warranted given concurrent Texas proceedings? | Schmidt seeks tolling to avoid dismissal of a meritorious claim. | Celgene emphasizes forum conflict and lack of diligence. | Equitable tolling denied; forum and public policy concerns weigh against tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Negron v. Llarena, 156 N.J. 296 (1998) (two tolling doctrines examined for cross-forum tolling)
- Galligan v. Westfield Ctr. Serv., Inc., 82 N.J. 188 (1980) (tolls when dismissal in federal forum preserves statute goals)
- Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498 (1991) (repeats policy concerns of relapse and forum stability)
- Alderiso v. Med. Ctr. of Ocean County, Inc., 167 N.J. 191 (2001) (timing of accrual and tolling principles in NJ CEPA context)
- Staub v. Eastman Kodak Co., 320 N.J. Super. 34 (App.Div. 1999) (forum and jurisdiction considerations in tolling discussions)
- Mitzner v. W. Ridgelawn Cemetery, Inc., 311 N.J. Super. 233 (App.Div. 1998) (cross-forum considerations in tolling analysis)