LePore v. National Tool and Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 May 1989
• Citation: LePore v. National Tool and Mfg. Co., 557 A.2d 1371, 115 N.J. 226 (N.J. 1989)
• Parties: , 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2749, 117 Lab.Cas. P 56,488, 4 IER Cases 871, 1989 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 28,562 Vincent LePORE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATIONAL TOOL AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 226

115 N.J. 226

557 A.2d 1371, 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2749,

117 Lab.Cas. P 56,488,

4 IER Cases 871, 1989 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 28,562

Vincent LePORE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATIONAL TOOL AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued March 13, 1989.

Decided May 15, 1989.

Wayne J. Positan, defendant-appellant (Lum, Hoens, Abeles, Conant & Danzis, attorneys; Wayne J. Positan and Steve M. Kalebic, Roseland, on the briefs).

Vincent LePore, pro se.

Clifford Gregory Stewart, Asst. Deputy Public Advocate, for amicus curiae, New Jersey Dept of the Public Advocate (Alfred A. Slocum, Public Advocate, attorney).

Bennet D. Zurofsky, for amicus curiae, New Jersey Indus. Union Council, AFL-CIO (Reitman, Parsonnet, Maisel & Duggan, Newark, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Conley's thoughtful opinion. In affirming, we note that the Appellate Division opinion is supported by the subsequent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, ----, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 1883, 100 L.Ed.2d 410, 420-21 (1988). There, the Court held that an employee covered by a collective-bargaining agreement could bring an action for wrongful discharge that violates independent state law. Here, the Appellate Division concluded that at the time of respondent's discharge, state law, as well as federal law, prevented an employer from discharging an employee for reporting workplace safety violations. 224 N.J.Super. 463, 468-70, 540 A.2d 1296 (1988). Under Lingle, respondent's cause of action has an independent basis in state law. 486 U.S. at ---- n. 6, 108 S.Ct. at 1882 n. 6, 100 L.Ed.2d at 419 n. 6.

It would be anomalous, moreover, to afford protection to all employees, including those covered by a collective-bargaining agreement, who are terminated after the effective date of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8, and to at-will employees terminated prior to the Act under the common law, but not to covered employees who are fired prior to the Act. Our recognition of a common-law cause of action for covered employees merely closes a narrow gap between the protection granted by the statute and our earlier decision in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505 (1980), which dealt with at-will employees.

Referring to the Act, the Appellate Division stated:

Although enacted after the retaliatory discharge here and, thus, not directly applicable, we view this legislation as a reaffirmation of this state's repugnance to an employer's retaliation against an employee who has done nothing more than assert statutory rights and protections and a recognition by the Legislature of a preexisting...