Categories: Retail

by Daniel R. Levy

On December 1, 2011, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed dismissal of a whistle-blowing and defamation lawsuit based in part on application of the New Jersey Health Care Professional Responsibility and Reporting Enhancement Act. In Senisch v. Carlino, A-6218-09T3 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 1, 2011), the court held that a health care entity which had reported negative, but truthful, information to another health care entity about a former health care professional’s termination of employment could not be liable for doing so.

In this case, the plaintiff was employed as a physician’s assistant in the cardiology department of Deborah Heart and Lung Center (“Deborah”).  Although the plaintiff had received favorable performance reviews in his first years of employment at Deborah, his 1999 performance evaluation was unfavorable, and Deborah later terminated his employment as a result of specifically stated performance deficiencies.  In 2001, he filed a lawsuit against Deborah alleging violations of New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) and Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).  Before trial, the case was settled.

Subsequently, the plaintiff obtained a position with a surgical orthopedic practice.  The position required that plaintiff obtain his credentialing at Underwood Memorial Hospital (“Underwood”).  As part of that credentialing process, Underwood requested information about the plaintiff from Deborah.  A physician at Deborah responded to the information request from Underwood, stating that based on the plaintiff’s documented performance by his supervisor, he “was involuntarily terminated from employment at Deborah following a series of unsuccessful attempts to achieve consistent improvement in his performance.”  The response also listed the performance deficiencies documented in the plaintiff’s personnel file.  Thereafter, the plaintiff withdrew his name from consideration for credentialing with Underwood and also resigned from his employment at the orthopedic practice.

The plaintiff then filed a second lawsuit, this time alleging retaliation by Deborah in violation of CEPA, as well as defamation and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.  The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed, determining that the Act required the defendants to disclose the information to Underwood.  The court held that the defendants were protected under the civil immunity provision of the Act because there was no evidence that the information provided in response to the request was “in bad faith or with malice.”  As a result, the court held that because the defendants were protected “against civil liability for reporting the circumstances of plaintiff’s termination, plaintiff could not prevail on his claims of tortious interference and defamation, or retaliation under CEPA.”

Although many states outside New Jersey have enacted legislation granting qualified immunity to employers providing reference information, few have gone as far as New Jersey by requiring health care entities to provide such information in response to a request by another health care entity.  While many states provide immunity to employers who act in good faith, determining whether liability exists varies among jurisdictions.  Most states that have enacted laws that provide immunity to employers which provide truthful information about former employees have limited immunity so that it applies only when the employer provides information directly related to the employee’s job performance, but not for information unrelated to job performance, i.e., that the employee had filed a discrimination charge against the employer.  Moreover, questions may exist as to whether liability may attach for references provided across state lines where the reference laws among those states differ.  Ultimately, health care entities, as well as other employers, should proactively ensure compliance with appropriate state reference laws.

Back to Workforce Bulletin Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors

Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Workforce Bulletin posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.