Victor Hernandez had worked for more than 20 years as a custodian at a public power plant and had received training in health and safety rules from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). He took a second job as night custodian at an elementary school. Shortly after he started work, the school board fired him for alleged poor job performance. Hernandez sued, claiming that the board fired him in retaliation for reporting health and safety code violations. The jury awarded Hernandez damages for lost wages and emotional distress but the trial judge granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The trial judge stated:

“Talk about trivial. By the time the jury went out, I should have concluded that the plaintiff simply had not made out a case, under the CEPA law, because he never disclosed or threatened to disclose to his supervisor an activity, policy, practice of an employer that the employee reasonably believed was in violation of law or a rule. There simply was none. In addition to that, there isn’t any other evidence adduced by anyone in the case that these things that he’s complaining about ever occurred. I didn’t believe anything [plaintiff] said. [This is] trivialization beyond belief.” Hernandez appealed.

Questions:

1. Did the trial court err by rejecting punitive damages, or by granting the JNOV?

2. What did the jury think about Hernandez’s claim?

3. Then why did the trial judge conclude that Hernandez was entitled to nothing?

4. Why does a trial judge have the power to ignore a jury’s decision?

5. Did the jury’s verdict in this case fail to rest on the evidence?

6. What is that standard? 

7. Isn’t this appeals court substituting its own judgment for that of the trial judge?