Plaintiff has served as the Tax Assessor for defendant Township of Tewksbury for many years. After a series of disagreements among the parties regarding plaintiff's assessments and her other work duties, Tewksbury attempted to remove plaintiff from her position.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court, alleging that defendants retaliated against her in violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14, from 2008 to 2019 for objecting to their attempts to unlawfully influence her assessment determinations and operate a "tax scheme."
Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting plaintiff could not establish a CEPA cause of action because she was not an "employee" under the statute entitled to CEPA protection. The trial court granted the motion, relying on Casamasino v. Jersey City, 304 N.J. Super. 226 (App. Div. 1997), rev'd on other grounds, 158 N.J. 333 (1999), and found that, as a tenured and statutorily protected tax assessor, plaintiff is not an "employee" under CEPA.
After a careful review, we conclude that Casamasino does not establish a bright line rule that all tax assessors are exempt from CEPA protection. Despite the unique position a tax assessor holds because of the statutory protection from removal from employment, a court determining the applicability of CEPA should still assess the employment relationship under the framework established in Feldman v. Hunterdon Radiological Assocs., 187 N.J. 228 (2006), and D'Annunzio v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 192 N.J. 110 (2007). See also Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 222 N.J. 362 (2015). The court vacated the order granting summary judgment and remanded for the consideration of the factors articulated in Feldman and D'Annunzio and a determination whether plaintiff is an employee entitled to CEPA protection.