In a controversial decision, White v. Starbucks Corp, et al, A-3153-09T2, the NJ Appellate Division held that the Conscientious Employees Protection Act (CEPA) does not apply to an employee who reports misconduct as part of her job duties.
The plaintiff, White, was a district manager for Starbucks. Her job description charged her with ensuring that employees followed "legal and operational compliance requirements." To that end, White reported several instances of store non-compliance, including missing merchandise, a lack of thermometers in cold storage units, unsanitary sinks and utensils, employees drinking alcohol and having sex in the store, and tables and chairs arranged to prevent wheelchair access. When she was terminated, White filed a CEPA claim, alleging Starbucks retaliated against her for reporting these violations.
The trial court disagreed, and the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of her claim on summary judgment. The record showed that many subordinates complained about White's management style, providing an alternative explanation for her dismissal. Interestingly, however, the Court's decision hinged on its determination that White's complaints did not qualify as whistle-blowing under CEPA. Specifically, the Court held that an employee who reports conduct as part of her job does not enjoy CEPA protection. Since White's job was to ensure the violations she reported were corrected, her complaints fell outside CEPA's scope.
This problematic case has the potential to curtail legal protection for compliance officers, auditors, and virtually all employees who are called upon to report and correct improper activity as part of their job duties.
