Call Us for a Free Case Review

609.243.0300

201.820.0644

Zatuchni & Associates
  • About
    • Firm Overview
    • About David Zatuchni
    • Recent Employment Law Settlements And Verdicts
  • Practice Areas
    • Racial Discrimination & Harassment
    • Ethnic Discrimination & Harassment
    • Sex Discrimination
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Age Discrimination & Harassment
    • Associational Discrimination and Harassment
    • View All Practice Areas
  • Blog
  • Locations
    • Lambertville Office
    • Hackensack Office
    • Other Areas We Serve
  • Contact
    • Free Case Review
Workplace Discrimination

My Employer Is Asking Me To Lie About a Co-Worker’s Discrimination Claim. What’s My Legal Protection If I Refuse?

David Zatuchni

Published on April 20, 2020
FacebookTweetPinPrint

Litigation can be ugly, and not just for the named parties to a lawsuit.  A plaintiff who files under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (the “LAD”) will necessarily call upon current or former co-workers whom she believes to have underlying knowledge of her complaint to testify to key facts.  At the same time, her employer will often call upon these same co-workers to defend management in their testimony. Maybe the employer will apply not-so-subtle pressure upon co-workers to lie, hedge or conveniently “forget” facts – for example, the employer might suggest that favorable testimony will be rewarded with a nice raise.  Or, the employer will outright ask the co-workers to lie or falsify evidence, with the unspoken threat that resistance will be met with termination.

So what’s the recourse for workers who don’t want to commit perjury?  Do they have any legal protections against reprisals?

Yes.  As a recent New Jersey appellate decision makes clear, a worker who refuses to lie or fabricate evidence against the plaintiff in a LAD claim may not be retaliated against for such conduct.  If such a worker is fired or otherwise punished, it gives rise to the worker’s own, separate claim for retaliation under the LAD.

Let’s take a look at the caselaw to see this principle in action.

The Rios Decision

In Rios v. Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center, Docket No. A-3846-18T1, (App. Div. April 14, 2020), the plaintiff, Rios, was an EMS paramedic for the defendant Hospital.  In 2013, the Hospital terminated Rios’s co-worker, a woman by the name of Bailey. Subsequently, in 2014, Bailey sued the Hospital for sexual harassment.  Importantly, Bailey never told Rios that she was subject to harassment, and Rios did not witness and was unaware of any such harassment. In fact, Rios was unaware Bailey was even planning on filing a lawsuit.  When it came to the allegations of Bailey’s complaint, Rios simply had no knowledge.

Nevertheless, Rios’s EMS supervisor made clear that he wanted Rios to not only support the Hospital but lie and fabricate evidence on its behalf.  Rios’s boss:

  • Repeatedly told him he needed to be a “team player”, and that, as an employee, he was “required to protect the hospital.”
  • Directed Rios to seek a restraining order against Bailey (presumably to provide false proof that she was threatening).
  • Directed Rios to state to Bailey’s lawyers that Bailey gave the Hospital and its employees “a hard time”, didn’t want to report to work, and created a “hostile work environment.”
  • Directed Rios to “tell all these [other employees] to get any complaints” against Bailey and submit them in writing.

Rios told his boss that he was not comfortable with and objected to these directives.  Afterwards, he was demoted and then fired. Rios then filed a retaliation claim against the Hospital under the LAD.  

Initially, a lower court dismissed his suit on the mistaken basis that Rios had to prove that he had a reasonable and good faith belief in the validity of Bailey’s discrimination claim; since Rios in fact had no knowledge about Bailey’s complaint, the court reasoned he could not show a reasonable, good faith belief in it.  However, the appellate court corrected this misinterpretation of the LAD’s retaliation protections. Specifically, the court held that all Rios needed to demonstrate was his good faith and reasonable basis for opposing the Hospital’s actions as violations of the LAD. The court was:

“. . . satisfied [Rios] sustained that burden by presenting evidence he refused [the Hospital’s] requests that he seek a meritless restraining order against Bailey and make misrepresentations concerning her . . .

. . . [Rios] demonstrated he had a good faith and reasonable belief [the Hospital’s] requests constituted efforts by defendant to unlawfully retaliate against Bailey for the filing” of her claim.

The court’s decision is consistent with the remedial purpose of the LAD in fighting workplace discrimination.  The law is designed to encourage workers to testify truthfully, even if it’s to their employer’s detriment, without fear of reprisal.

In Conclusion

It is illegal for your employer to request you to lie, hedge, or fabricate testimony or evidence in defense of a co-worker’s LAD claim.  If you’re faced with such a request, the LAD prohibits your employer from retaliating against you for refusing it, and allows you to sue your employer if such retaliation in fact occurs.  

If you are, in fact, called upon to submit testimony or other evidence in a co-workers LAD claim, the rules are quite simple: Don’t speculate in your answers, answer only as to what you know, and answer truthfully. 

Are you concerned your employer is pressuring you to lie in defense of a co-workers discrimination lawsuit?  Call our offices today for a free consultation.

Home / Workplace Discrimination / My Employer Is Asking Me To Lie About a Co-Worker’s Discrimination Claim. What’s My Legal Protection If I Refuse?
FacebookTweetPinPrint
David Zatuchni
David Zatuchni graduated from Northwestern University School of Law in 1995. Since that time, he has exclusively practiced in the field of employment law. For many years, Mr. Zatuchni defended large corporations in all types of employment discrimination lawsuits and labor law matters. Read More

Free Case Study

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Other Articles You May Like

white privilege workshops and racial discrimination
Workplace Discrimination

Are Employer “White Privilege” Workshops Legal Under Anti-Discrimination Employment Laws?

Workplace Discrimination

The Importance of Documenting Complaints: A Cautionary Tale

Workplace Discrimination

The New Jersey CROWN Act: Prohibiting Discrimination Based Upon Hair . . . And More?

0 Comments

Join the conversation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

About
  • Firm Overview
  • About David Zatuchni
  • Recent Employment Law Settlements and Verdicts
  • Contact

Super Lawyer rating

Member of the National Employment Lawyers Association

Zatuchni & Associates LLC BBB accredited business profile
BBB RATING: A+
Practice Areas
  • Racial Discrimination & Harassment
  • Ethnic Discrimination & Harassment
  • Sex Discrimination
  • Sexual Harassment Claims
  • Age Discrimination & Harassment
Lambertville Office

287 South Main Street, (Route 29)
Lambertville, NJ 08530
Phone: 609-243-0300

Hackensack Office

2 University Plaza, Suite 100
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 820-0644

Copyright © 2023 Zatuchni Law. All rights reserved.

  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright Notice
  • Disclaimer
  • Site Map