WAYNE MCCAW VS. VERNON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-0113-13, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0875-15T4

Background

McCaw, a custodian for Vernon Twp. Bd. of Education since 2002, filed a PEOSHA complaint in July 2007 after observing contractors dry-cutting concrete and creating silica dust at Walnut Ridge Primary School. The DOL fined the contractor.
After the 2007 complaint, McCaw alleges supervisory treatment changed (memoranda, directives to work with a disabled co-worker, warnings); he received mostly favorable annual evaluations and reappointments through 2011.
McCaw was transferred to Lounsberry Hollow School (by 2010), where supervisors later reported he failed to secure front doors on multiple nights; he was suspended for attendance issues in 2010 and ultimately terminated in March 2012.
McCaw sued asserting CEPA violations (retaliation for the 2007 PEOSHA complaint and for refusing to falsely attest to training, union activity, and other protected conduct), hostile work environment, constitutional claims, and NJLAD and workers’ comp–related theories.
The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants only addressing McCaw’s CEPA claim that termination was retaliation for the 2007 PEOSHA complaint; it found the five‑year gap and different supervisors undermined causation. The court did not analyze McCaw’s other CEPA theories or the remaining counts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McCaw showed a causal link under CEPA between filing the 2007 PEOSHA complaint and his 2012 termination	McCaw contends the adverse treatment after the 2007 complaint and the Board official who terminated him (Linkenheimer) being aware of the complaint allow an inference of retaliation	Defendants argue the termination was based on recent, independent conduct (failing to secure doors) under different supervisors years later, so no causal nexus exists	Affirmed as to this theory: no reasonable jury could infer termination in 2012 was caused by the 2007 PEOSHA complaint given the intervening favorable evaluations, reappointments, and lack of direct evidence tying the complaint to the termination decision
Whether other CEPA theories (e.g., retaliation for refusing to falsely sign logbook, union activity, reporting water contamination) survive summary judgment	McCaw alleged separate protected activities and asserted those motivated adverse actions including discipline and termination	Defendants had not had those specific CEPA theories decided by the trial court on summary judgment	Trial court order as to these theories vacated and remanded: the appellate court declines to decide them in the first instance and instructs the trial court to resolve defendants’ summary judgment motion on these claims with findings and reasoning
Whether hostile work environment, NJLAD, and constitutional claims were resolved properly on the summary judgment record	McCaw asserted an ongoing hostile work environment and related claims tied to retaliatory conduct and alleged aggravation of medical conditions	Defendants relied on the same factual record and urged summary dismissal	Vacated and remanded for the trial court to consider these claims (the appellate court did not rule on merits)
Whether appellate court may decide unaddressed summary-judgment issues	McCaw asks for full reversal and reinstatement of remaining claims	Defendants rely on the existing record and trial-court ruling on the PEOSHA-related CEPA claim	Appellate court refuses to decide unaddressed claims for the first time; remands for trial-court findings per R.1:7-4 and R.4:46-2(c)

Key Cases Cited

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (summary judgment standard; view evidence for non‑movant)
Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189 (N.J. 2016) (de novo review of summary judgment)
Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 222 N.J. 362 (N.J. 2015) (elements of CEPA claim)
D'Annunzio v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 192 N.J. 110 (N.J. 2007) (CEPA prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers)
Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451 (N.J. 2003) (CEPA / prima facie cause framework)
Hitesman v. Bridgeway, Inc., 218 N.J. 8 (N.J. 2014) (causation burden in CEPA cases)
Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., 214 N.J. 518 (N.J. 2013) (circumstantial proof of retaliation; inference principles)
Maimone v. City of Atlantic City, 188 N.J. 221 (N.J. 2006) (temporal proximity and causation analysis)
Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (N.J. 2015) (trial-court obligation to make findings and conclusions)
Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J. Super. 589 (App. Div. 2014) (summary-judgment evidentiary requirements)
Rutgers Univ. Student Assembly v. Middlesex Cty. Bd. of Elections, 438 N.J. Super. 93 (App. Div. 2014) (failure to make required Rule 1:7-4 findings mandates remand)