Ogletree Deakins: Attorney-assisted Gripes about Commission Reduction Not Protected by New Jersey CEPA | Practical Law

Ogletree Deakins: Attorney-assisted Gripes about Commission Reduction Not Protected by New Jersey CEPA | Practical Law

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., discusses the New Jersey Appellate Division's decision in Powell v. Wachovia Corp., overturning a jury award to a plaintiff who had successfully argued that he was terminated from employment because of complaints about his reduced commission payments, which he argued violated New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). The court held that the plaintiff's having hired an attorney and voiced his objections lacked the public purpose required to state a claim under CEPA, and that the plaintiff had no reasonable objective belief that the reduction was "fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful," as required.

Ogletree Deakins: Attorney-assisted Gripes about Commission Reduction Not Protected by New Jersey CEPA

by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Published on 14 May 2012New Jersey, United States
This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., discusses the New Jersey Appellate Division's decision in Powell v. Wachovia Corp., overturning a jury award to a plaintiff who had successfully argued that he was terminated from employment because of complaints about his reduced commission payments, which he argued violated New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). The court held that the plaintiff's having hired an attorney and voiced his objections lacked the public purpose required to state a claim under CEPA, and that the plaintiff had no reasonable objective belief that the reduction was "fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful," as required.