A fair amount of buzz has been generated by some recent nonbinding, unpublished decisions that purport to somehow overrule decades of Supreme Court and Appellate Division precedent, as well as usurp the Legislature’s authority by erroneously importing into our whistleblower law a nonexistent exception that excludes from its protection employees who blow the whistle within the scope of their job duties. These cases fly in the face of the very purpose of CEPA, leave whistleblowing employees without protection, increase the likelihood that otherwise conscientious employees will refrain from blowing the whistle out of fear that they will lose their jobs and, as a result, expose society to harm that would otherwise have been cured by an employee’s whistleblowing.
CEPA, which has often been described as "the most far-reaching whistleblower statute in the nation," was enacted "to protect and encourage employees to report illegal or unethical workplace activities and to discourage public and private sector employers from engaging in such conduct." Yurick v. State, 184 N.J. 70, 77 (2005); Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp., 153 N.J. 163, 179 (1998). Because "CEPA must be considered ‘remedial’ legislation," it "should be construed liberally to effectuate its important social goal." Abbamont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 138 N.J. 405, 431 (1995).
