Press "Enter" to skip to content

Volunteers Not Protected By New Jersey’s Whistleblower Law, Says Court

A New Jersey appeals court just recently ruled that a volunteer fireman was not a “staff member” of the volunteer fire company from which he was expelled, declining his whistleblower claim and strictly translating the state’s statute. September 13, 2017, judgment needs to aid New Jersey companies relating to whether real “volunteers” are safeguarded under the state’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act, frequently called “CEPA” (Sauter v. Colts Neck Volunteer Fire Company No. 2).

Rocky Relationship Leads to Legal Claims

The Colts Neck Fire Department includes 2 volunteer business, appropriately called Company No. 1 and Company No. 2. The Companies are managed by an Executive Fire Council consisted of agents from each Company and members or designees of the Township Committee. The Township keeps employees’ settlement and liability insurance for volunteer firemen, as well as supplies them with decreased costs for specific local licenses and licenses an additional reward to serve.

Jeffrey Sauter, a full-time staff member of the Monmouth County Sheriff’s Office, signed up with Fire Company No. 2 when he was still in high school and served for over 20 years. He had a rather controversial relationship with his Company. In 2004, he submitted a whistleblower claim versus the Company after being suspended for 18 months, declaring the suspension remained in retaliation for his grievances about the bidding procedure for remodelings to the Company’s fire hall– after his bro was rejected the agreement. Sauter and the Company settled the match for $10,000.

Sauter would not let the matter lie. He preserved the settlement cannot make him entirely for his legal costs, which he declared went beyond the settlement by some 7 or 8 thousand dollars. Many years, later, he submitted an official ask for his legal charges, and the general subscription of the Company voted to compensate him. After the vote, nevertheless, the Company acquired legal suggestions that the compensation would threaten the Company’s 501(c)(3) tax status and subsequently did not make the compensation.

At about the exact same time, the Company found that it’s just recently deceased veteran treasurer had embezzled about $300,000. The Company made a claim under its fidelity policy, but after Sauter was alerted the Company would not be compensating him for his legal charges from the 2004 claim, he composed to the fidelity provider straight and declared the Company’s evidence of loss of the embezzlement was deceptive.

Not long after that, Sauter grumbled to the Executive Fire Council that Fire Company No. 2 was allowing members to deal with their family garbage in the Company dumpster. He asked the Executive Council to get a legal viewpoint that this did not threaten the fire department’s 501(c)(3) status by giving a “financial advantage” on experts.

This, obviously, was the final stroke. In action to his most current problem, numerous members of Fire Company No. 2 signed a letter to the president and subscription committee lodging a protest versus Sauter. The problem declared Sauter had been rude and violent to members after his repayment claim was turned down; that he had set out to “undermine” the Company’s insurance claim by wrongly implicating it of scams; that his grievance to the Executive Council about the dumpster was pointless; which his “upset and belligerent” conduct was “unbecoming” of a Company member and damaging to the Company and the security of its members. Amongst the plaintiffs was Sauter’s own sibling.

Following an examination, the subscription committee sustained the charges versus him and ended his subscription in the Company. Sauter attracted the complete subscription, which sustained his termination.

Among the advantages of functioning as a volunteer fireman is that members are qualified for the Emergency Services Volunteer Length of Service Award Program (LOSAP), including delayed payment advantages of in between $400 and $1,150 annually of active duty. At the time of his expulsion, Sauter had a LOSAP account consisting of $5,871.71, which he will be qualified to get when he turns 55.

Volunteer Finds No Protection Under Whistleblower Law

Sauter reacted to his expulsion by suing under CEPA, which restricts companies from taking “vindictive action,” specified as “discharge, suspension or demotion … or other unfavorable work action … in the terms of work.” CEPA just uses to an action taken versus a “staff member” who divulges, threatens to divulge, or declines to get involved in an activity of the company that the staff member fairly thinks is in the offense of a law, or a guideline or policy promoted pursuant to law.

The high court dismissed Sauter’s CEPA claim, ruling he was not a “staff member” entitled to the statute’s defenses. Sauter then took his claim to the New Jersey Appellate Division– the state’s intermediate appellate court– and requested for a turnaround of the lower court’s choice. In a viewpoint launched on September 13, the appeals court verified the lower court’s judgment and promoted the termination.

CEPA specifies “worker” as one who “carries out services for and under the control and instructions of a company for salaries or another reimbursement.” There was no question that Sauter worked under the control and instructions of the fire department. The court determined the appropriate question as for whether Sauter performed his firefighting services “for salaries or another reimbursement.” If so, he might sustain his claim; if not, he would lose before he might even provide proof concerning his supposed whistleblowing.

Sauter was undoubtedly not paid incomes, so the court analyzed whether he got “other compensation” for his volunteer work. The court declined the idea that the LOSAP advantages certified as “reimbursement” under CEPA because of they “no place near approximate the real financial value of the services the firemen’s offer.” While firemen make points towards their yearly LOSAP award by taking part in drills, calls, and training, the LOSAP program does rule out or deal with those activities as compensated jobs. The “very modest LOSAP advantages” Sauter might anticipate gathering upon turning 55 “would not suffice settlement to change the voluntary nature of the firefighting services themselves,” the court ruled.

The court found no legal intent for CEPA to secure volunteers, like Sauter, who are not compensated for their work. “An employer-employee relationship,” the court described, is “the sine qua non to developing liability under the statute” and cannot be found “in the lack of payment for services.”.

What Does This Mean For New Jersey Employers?

By specifying “worker” under CEPA as one who gets a settlement for services that at least estimate the value of those services, the Appellate Division has provided a reasonably clear difference in between “staff members,” who go through the statute’s securities, and “volunteers,” who are not. There will no doubt be the periodic case where the evaluation of volunteers’ services and the advantages supplied to them are a topic of disagreement. For the most part, perquisites supplied to volunteers are so modest in contrast to the services they supply that there will practically never ever be an issue differentiating in between them and staff members.

If you use the services of volunteers in your company, you need to evaluate the reimbursement they get to identify whether a sensible court would find them to approximate the value of services they supply. If so, you ought to understand that courts might find these volunteers to be entitled to the defenses of CEPA, and you need to act appropriately regarding your personnel’s practices.

This judgment also raises a question of public law in New Jersey. Could the absence of whistleblower defense to volunteers, at least sometimes, dissuade people from taking part in essential activities such as firefighting? In New Jersey, local neighborhoods depend upon volunteer fire business to an unexpected degree. If this choice has a chilling impact on volunteers, the service will not be found in the court system. Rather, because the courts are constrained by the language and scope of CEPA, it would be for the state legislature to figure out if the statute must be changed to resolve this issue.

Copyright © 2017 by All rights reserved.