Introduction
A recent court case related to employment termination in New Jersey was Debra Herbe v. Rutgers University. The plaintiff is Debra Herbe, the nurse, while the defendant is her former employer Rutgers University. The trial was completed in 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but lasted almost six years. The conflict was caused by the fact that the University Hospital suspended the plaintiff from the occupied position due to her taking an extended sick leave. The outcome was that the court decided the plaintiff’s sickness and absence from work were induced by the defendant’s actions; thus, Herbe won the trial.
Discussion
The trial was reasonable because the plaintiff had enough proof that her suspension from work was unlawful. Herbe used to occupy the role of clinical nurse coordinator at Rutgers since 2011 (Debra Herbe v. Rutgers University, 2020). According to the plaintiff, she was fired because of the whistleblowing incident that occurred at the workplace. Specifically, Herbe reported that two of her co-workers were involved in writing an application essay to the graduate program during working hours (Debra Herbe v. Rutgers University, 2020). The investigation of the complaint resulted in her colleague, Rosenberg, being removed from consideration for the program (Debra Herbe v. Rutgers University, 2020). This situation produced a passive-aggressive relationship between Herbe and her colleagues, who started to harass and criticize the plaintiff. These comments led to post-traumatic stress disorder in the latter, forcing her to take a long break from work. Since the plaintiff could not tell when she would return to work, the university had to suspend her employment.
In this situation, it is evident that the defendant fired the plaintiff for her extended absence from work, not for whistleblowing. Employers in the United States cannot fire or refuse to hire people based on race, gender, ancestry, national origin, age, sexual orientation, marital status, or religion (New Jersey Revised Statutes, 2020). Indeed, thanks to the activity of unions, various anti-discrimination legislative acts have been passed since the 1980s in the U.S. (Lansbury & Bamber, 2020). In the case of the plaintiff, she was not discriminated against by any of the abovementioned traits, but Herbe was fired since she was absent from work for a prolonged period. According to federal laws, employers have the right to suspend workers from their duties if their sick leave exceeds the established norms (Doyle, 2020). However, the sickness was caused by the employer’s indirect actions; hence, the plaintiff won the case.
Since this situation involved issues of academic integrity, harassment, and loss of employment, the human resource (HR) management at Rutgers likely had to face some serious ethical issues. For example, they had to continue working with an employee who tried to breach academic integrity by submitting an essay written for him by another person. Another problem was that people who contributed to Herbe’s mental health issues by continuously making negative comments could not be punished. In fact, this situation indicated that the HR department did not fulfill its duties properly if it resulted in such severe consequences. The ethical dilemma was that the actions of the employer compromised the privacy of the plaintiff. Since she was the only individual who saw Druist and Rosenberg working on the essay, Herbe became the immediate target of bullying from her colleagues (Debra Herbe v. Rutgers University, 2020). The university should have taken measures to protect the plaintiff from harassment. Moreover, considering the fact that Herbe was proven to be right, HR managers might face the issue of whether Rosenberg and Druist should be fired.
Since Herbe won the case, Rutgers University will likely want to appeal the court’s decision, suggesting that this educational institution will be involved in more litigations in the next five years. However, the indirect fault of the employer in causing the plaintiff’s illness was undeniable (Debra Herbe v. Rutgers University, 2020). Hence, the chance for Rutgers to win the case is not high. Moreover, the latter has the right to claim moral compensation in court, which will inevitably lead to more trials between Rutgers University and Herbe. Another possible future litigation may involve the university employees who were involved in harassing Herbe. In fact, it is highly likely that other educational institutions will have similar trials related to harassment, discrimination, and different types of unprofessional conduct that may harm an individual’s emotional or physical well-being.
Conclusion
In summary, Debra Herbe v. Rutgers University was a fair trial about an unlawful termination of employment. The plaintiff Herbe won the case because she could provide evidence of her prolonged sickness caused by the employer’s indirect actions. Indeed, the latter was obliged to protect her from harassment by the co-workers for being a whistleblower. The university’s human resource management seemed to face the dilemma of only giving a disciplinary warning to Rosenberg, who was the main contributor to Herbe’s post-traumatic stress disorder and prolonged sick leave. At the same time, the actual victim of this incident was asked to suspend her duties. It is challenging to call this situation equivocal and enigmatic because the plaintiff followed the moral code by reporting the misconduct of her colleagues. However, her act produced the conflict that her employer was supposed to resolve and failed to do so, which was rightfully recognized in court.
References
Debra Herbe v. Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey. (2020). Superior Court of New Jersey, no. A-2464-18T2. Web.
Doyle, A. (2020). Can you get fired for calling in sick? The Balance Careers. Web.
Lansbury, R. D., & Bamber, G. J. (Eds.). (2020). International and comparative employment relations: National regulation, global changes. Routledge.
New Jersey Revised Statutes. Civil Rights Section 10:5-12. (2020). Web.