TROOPER BRETT BLOOM, ETC. VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEYÂ (L-542-12, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0110-15T1

Background

Plaintiff Trooper Brett Bloom, a State Police ballistics examiner, refused in 2007 to "peer review" a supervisor Cowden's ballistics report, alleging ethical falsification; he reported the incident to a lieutenant but filed no formal report at the time.
Cowden was transferred away but returned in 2010 as assistant head under Lt. Ryan; Bloom alleges a pattern of harassment and a hostile work environment after Cowden's return, and took administrative leave in June 2010.
In April 2011 Bloom was transferred from the Ballistics Unit (BU) to the Firearms Investigation Unit (FIU); in June 2012 he reported alleged federal firearm-registration violations and was transferred to the Business Integrity Unit (BIU) for eight months.
Bloom sued under CEPA for retaliation (Counts One and Two), alleged a Petition Clause violation (Count Three), and alleged a Division cover-up (Count Four). Defendants moved for summary judgment.
The motion court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice: most pre-2011 acts were time-barred; the court found no causal link between the 2007 refusal and the 2011 transfer; the 2012 transfer to BIU was not an adverse employment action; Bloom did not oppose the Petition Clause claim at trial level. Bloom appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre-2011 harassment claims are timely under CEPA	Bloom argued the hostile environment after Cowden's 2010 return flowed from the 2007 protected act and supported CEPA claims	Defendants argued CEPA claims accrue at the adverse act and the one-year limitations bar pre-2011 acts	Held: Pre-2011 claims (other than the 2011 transfer) were time-barred under N.J.S.A. 34:19-5
Whether 2011 transfer was actionable retaliation under CEPA	Bloom argued the transfer was retaliation for his 2007 whistleblowing/refusal to peer review	Defendants produced non-retaliatory reasons (personality conflict, internal investigation, medical/therapeutic recommendations)	Held: No causal nexus; defendants' reasons unrebutted; summary judgment for defendants on Count One
Whether 2012 transfer (FIU → BIU) was an adverse employment action under CEPA	Bloom argued transfer followed his report of federal violations and was retaliatory; he described it as a non-advancing lateral move	Defendants showed transfer was discretionary, conferred supervisory title and responsibilities, and involved no loss of pay/status	Held: Transfer was not an adverse employment action; Count Two dismissed
Whether Bloom preserved and presented a viable Petition Clause claim	Bloom contended defendants targeted him and pursued internal investigations after litigation; claim should go to jury	Defendants moved for summary judgment on Count Three; Bloom did not meaningfully oppose at trial court or submit competent opposing facts	Held: Bloom failed to oppose below or present competent facts; Rule 4:46-5 bars resting on pleadings; summary judgment proper on Count Three

Key Cases Cited

Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 222 N.J. 362 (establishes CEPA prima facie elements)
Villalobos v. Fava, 342 N.J. Super. 38 (CEPA statute of limitations accrues at adverse act; one-year bar)
Donelson v. Dupont Chambers Works, 206 N.J. 243 (CEPA includes broad range of "other adverse employment action")
Maimone v. Atlantic City, 188 N.J. 221 (temporal proximity may support causal inference in retaliation claims)
Romano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 284 N.J. Super. 543 (temporal proximity not sole basis for causal inference)
Mancini v. Township of Teaneck, 349 N.J. Super. 527 (transfers not inherently adverse absent loss of status/pay/responsibility)
G.D. v. Kenny, 205 N.J. 275 (opposing party cannot rely on mere pleadings to defeat summary judgment under Rule 4:46-5(a))