Espinosa v. County of Union

1 Citing brief

  1. Norton v. Stop And Shop Store #830 et al

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed January 30, 2017

    The waiver provision thus precludes all claims "substantially related" and based on the same conduct as the CEPA claim, "in- clud[ing] all rights and remedies that are available when an employee is wrongfully discharged for disclosure, in an attempt to prevent multiple claims based upon the same issue." See Espinosa v. County of Union, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36563, 2005 WL 2089916, *11 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2005), aff'd on other grounds, 212 Fed. App'x 146, 156 (3d Cir. 2007). Importantly, [*27] however, the waiver provision does not apply "to those causes of action that are sub- stantially independent of the CEPA claim."