## Facts

- Angelo J. Maimone was an Atlantic City police officer assigned as a detective in the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which carried a 3% pay differential and certain benefits (including an unmarked vehicle).
- For years, his SIU work focused on prostitution and related sexually oriented offenses.
- After Arthur C. Snellbaker became Chief of Police, Maimone was instructed by supervisors not to initiate or continue promotion-of-prostitution investigations except in limited circumstances; supervisors also directed him to end pending prostitution investigations and focus on narcotics.
- Files Maimone maintained on promotion-of-prostitution suspects were removed, and his access was restricted; after he complained in a memorandum, his supervisor allegedly warned him, “You’re asking for it.”
- Maimone complained that the City was not enforcing N.J.S.A. 2C:34-7, which restricts sexually oriented businesses from operating within 1,000 feet of churches or schools; he wrote to the municipal solicitor and later to his chain of command.
- Shortly after those complaints, a superior told Maimone he would be removed from SIU and reassigned to patrol.
- Maimone was transferred from SIU detective to patrol, resulting in loss of the 3% differential and loss of the unmarked vehicle and related privileges.
- The stated reason for the transfer was his attendance at the wedding of a suspected organized-crime figure’s daughter, but internal affairs had previously concluded his attendance was proper and approved for intelligence purposes.
- Maimone filed a Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) retaliation action; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, the Appellate Division reversed, and the Supreme Court reviewed.

## Issues

1. Whether Maimone’s objections to an alleged policy terminating enforcement of prostitution-related laws and N.J.S.A. 2C:34-7 could constitute CEPA-protected activity based on a reasonable belief of illegality or incompatibility with a clear mandate of public policy.
2. Whether Maimone’s transfer from SIU detective to patrol, with associated pay and benefit losses, could constitute a CEPA “retaliatory action” (adverse employment action).
3. Whether evidence of timing and disputed justification created a triable issue of causation and pretext, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of summary judgment, permitting the CEPA claim to proceed.
- The Court held that a genuine dispute existed as to whether Maimone reasonably believed the alleged non-enforcement policy conflicted with clear public policy embodied in criminal statutes addressing prostitution and statutory protections for areas near churches and schools.
- The Court held that the transfer, coupled with loss of a salary differential and significant job-related benefits, could qualify as an adverse employment action under CEPA.
- The Court held that temporal proximity and conflicting evidence about the stated reason for the transfer created triable issues on causation and pretext.

## Legal Principles

- CEPA is construed liberally to protect employees who object to or refuse to participate in employer conduct they reasonably believe violates law or is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning public health, safety, or welfare.
- CEPA’s “reasonable belief” element does not require proof of an actual legal violation; the belief must be objectively reasonable in light of the employee’s training and experience, and is often fact-dependent.
- A transfer may constitute CEPA retaliation when it materially changes compensation or the terms and conditions of employment, including loss of pay differentials or significant job-related privileges.
- Causation may be inferred from close timing between protected activity and adverse action, and a jury may find pretext where the employer’s stated justification is undermined by conflicting evidence.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a police officer’s CEPA retaliation claim to proceed because a factfinder could conclude he reasonably objected to an alleged policy of non-enforcement of prostitution-related statutes, that his transfer with pay and benefit losses was an adverse action, and that disputed timing and justification evidence supported causation and pretext, making summary judgment inappropriate.


Maimone v. City of Atlantic City, 188 N.J. 221, 903 A.2d 1055 (N.J. 2006)