P.E.R.C. No. 2026-35, University Hospital

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-003 KEVIN PORTER, Charging Party. ¶

SynopsisSYNOPSIS ¶

The Public Employment Relations Commission grants Porter’s appeal of the Director of Unfair Practices’ refusal to issue a complaint on his unfair practice charge (UPC) against University Hospital. Porter’s charge alleges that University Hospital violated the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1, et seq. when it investigated and disciplined him following his complaints to management about workplace issues and his supervisor. The Commission finds that, while some of Porter’s allegations concern events beyond the statute of limitations, several of his allegations concern alleged retaliation for his protected activity occurring within six months of the filing of his UPC. The Commission remands these timely allegations to the Director for issuance of a complaint. ¶

This synopsis is not part of the Commission decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commission. ¶

CaptionSTATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CI-2026-003 KEVIN PORTER, Charging Party. ¶

AppearancesAppearances: ¶

For the Respondent, University Hospital, Alexandria Harwin, Associate General Counsel ¶

For the Charging Party, Kevin Porter, pro se ¶

DECISION ¶

On December 12 and 15, 2025, the Charging Party, Kevin Porter (Porter), filed an appeal and amended appeal of the December 11, 2025 decision of the Director of Unfair Practices (Director) refusing to issue a complaint on his unfair practice charge and amended charges (UPC) filed on July 2, 24, 25, 28, and 29, 2025 against his employer, University Hospital.1/ D.U.P. No. 2026-9, 52 NJPER 179 (¶49 2025). Porter’s UPC alleges that University Hospital violated subsections 5.4a(1) and (3)2/ of the New Jersey Public Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.1, et seq. (Act), by retaliating against him in the form of investigations and discipline following his complaints to management over issues such as unauthorized employee reassignments, unequal work distribution caused by nepotism/favoritism, and threats from a supervisor. ¶

The Director dismissed the majority of Porter’s allegations as falling outside of the six-month statute of limitations for filing unfair practice charges. (D.U.P. at 3-5). The Director dismissed the remaining allegations concerning nepotism and racial discrimination as being outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. (D.U.P. at 5-7). Porter’s amended appeal disputes the untimeliness finding and asserts that the Director improperly weighed the evidence and drew adverse conclusions against him instead of considering whether his allegations, if true, could constitute an unfair practice. On January 20, 2026, University Hospital filed a response to Porter’s appeal agreeing with the Director’s findings of untimeliness and of lack of jurisdiction for allegations related to nepotism and racial discrimination. ¶

The Commission has authority to issue a complaint where it appears that a charging party’s allegations, if true, may constitute an unfair practice within the meaning of the Act. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c; N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. Where no complaint is issued, the charging party may appeal to the Commission, which may sustain the refusal to issue a complaint or may direct that further action be taken. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.3(b). ¶

“An employer violates subsection 5.4a(1) if it engages in activities which tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce an employee in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act, provided the actions taken lack a legitimate and substantial business justification.” Mine Hill Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 86-145, 12 NJPER 526, 527 (¶17197 1986). “For a 5.4a(1) violation to be found, proof of actual interference, restraint, coercion, intimidation, or motive is unnecessary; the tendency to interfere is sufficient.” State of N.J. (Children and Families), P.E.R.C. No. 2026-18, 52 NJPER 194, 197 (¶52 2025); Trenton Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2023-45, 49 NJPER 530 (¶126 2023); and Commercial Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 83-25, 8 NJPER 550, 552 (¶13253 1982), aff’d, 10 NJPER 78 (¶15043 App. Div. 1983). ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(3) prohibits public employers, their representatives, or agents, from: “Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act.” Allegations of anti-union discrimination under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4a(3) are governed by In re Bridgewater Tp., 95 N.J. 235, 240-246 (1984). Bridgewater established that the charging party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence on the entire record, that protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action. This may be done by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence showing that the employee engaged in protected activity, the employer knew of this activity, and the employer was hostile toward the exercise of the protected rights. Id. at 246. If the employer did not present any evidence of a motive not illegal under our Act, or if its explanation has been rejected as pretextual, there is sufficient basis for finding a violation without further analysis. Id. at 241. Sometimes, however, the record demonstrates that both motives unlawful under our Act and other motives contributed to a personnel action. In these dual motive cases, the employer will not have violated the Act if it can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence on the entire record, that the adverse action would have taken place absent the protected conduct. Id. at 242. ¶

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c establishes a six-month statute of limitations period for the filing of unfair practice charges. However, “[t]he Act does not rigidly bar relief on all causes of action arising more than six months before a charge was filed.” State of New Jersey (Juvenile Justice) and Judy Thorpe, P.E.R.C. No. 2014-71, 40 NJPER 512 (¶164 2014), aff’d, 43 NJPER 353 (¶100 App. Div. 2017), certif. den. 231 N.J. 211 (2017). A charge may still be filed if the charging party was “prevented” from filing a charge on time and the six month period will not begin to run until the charging party was “no longer so prevented.” N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c. Relevant considerations include whether a charging party sought timely relief in another forum; whether the respondent fraudulently concealed and misrepresented the facts establishing an unfair practice; when a charging party knew or should have known the basis for its claim; and how long a time has passed between the contested action and the charge. Kaczmarek v. N.J. Turnpike Auth., 77 N.J. 329, 340 (1978); Lakewood Tp. (Schulman), P.E.R.C. No. 2020-25, 46 NJPER 234 (¶55 2019); State of New Jersey, P.E.R.C. No. 2003-56, 29 NJPER 93 (¶26 2003); and Hoboken Teachers Ass’n, P.E.R.C No. 91-110, 17 NJPER 331 (¶22145 1991). ¶

Here, as Porter’s initial UPC was filed on July 2, 2025, all allegations of retaliation for protected activity occurring prior to January 2, 2025 are barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, for example, the June 19, 2024, discipline Porter alleges was in retaliation for advocating for employee rights occurred more than six months prior to his July 2, 2025, UPC. (D.U.P. at 3). Porter’s allegations of retaliation immediately following his September 30, 2024 complaints to management also occurred outside of the six month statute of limitations. Id. Moreover, Porter’s submissions do not demonstrate that he was prevented from timely filing unfair practice charges concerning those allegations. We therefore concur with the Director’s determination that those allegations are untimely pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4c. (D.U.P. at 4-5). ¶

We next address the substantive question of whether a complaint should issue on any allegations contained in Porter’s UPC occurring within the six-month statute of limitations (January 2, 2025, or later). Initially, we concur with the Director’s determination that Porter’s racial discrimination allegations must be dismissed because the Commission does not have jurisdiction over civil rights claims. State of N.J. (Kearny), P.E.R.C. No. 2025-19, 51 NJPER 175 (¶44 2024); and Woodstown-Pilesgrove Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2023-18, 49 NJPER 273 (¶63 2022). Claims of anti-union discrimination cannot be based on alleged violations of laws other than the Act, particularly where those laws provide a forum for review of an employer’s actions. N.J. Turnpike Auth., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-38, 48 NJPER 393 (¶90 2022); and Elizabeth Housing Auth. (Looney), P.E.R.C. No. 90-84, 16 NJPER 211 (¶21084 1990). ¶

We also concur with the Director’s determination that Porter’s nepotism hiring claim, standing alone, does not implicate the Commission’s unfair practice jurisdiction. (D.U.P. at 6); see UMDNJ, H.E. No. 90-13, 15 NJPER 632 (¶20266 1989), adopted, P.E.R.C. No. 90-51, 16 NJPER 12 (¶21007 1989) (favoritism, standing alone, in selecting a certain employee for a supervisory training course and promoting her did not violate the Act where it was not shown to be in retaliation for protected activity of employees not selected or to repudiate the CNA’s promotional procedures). Furthermore, as Porter does not allege that he applied for the position allegedly filled by his supervisor’s relative in March 2025 (and stated in his July 29, 2025 UPC that it was for a “position identical” to his), there is no viable unfair practice claim that Porter was denied the position in retaliation for protected activity. Compare Bergen Cty. Special Services School Dist., P.E.R.C. No. 88-83, 14 NJPER 241 (~19088 1988), aff’d, NJPER Supp.2d 206 (¶181 App. Div. 1989) (employer violated the Act when it retaliated against an employee for his protected conduct by applying altered criteria to hire a different candidate than him for a full-time interpreter position). ¶

However, we disagree with the Director’s conclusion that Porter does not allege “that he was affected in any way by the alleged nepotism hire.” (D.U.P. at 6). Porter’s July 23, 2025, amended UPC alleges that a Navigator (Y.M.) with supervisory authority to assign work engaged in favoritism towards her daughter-in-law (or son’s girlfriend), causing unequal distribution of work. See Bloomingdale Bor., H.E. No. 2006-2, 31 NJPER 267 (¶106 2005) (employee “established that [he] was engaged in a protected activity” when he argued with his supervisor over “alleged favoritism towards some employees regarding terms and conditions of employment” ). Porter also alleged that Y.M. “threatened” him at work in violation of University Hospital’s employee conduct policy. The UPC alleges that on June 24, 2025, Porter expressed these concerns about Y.M. to Human Resources and was told that he was under investigation. He asserts this was “retaliation for speaking out.” ¶

Porter’s July 25, 2025, amended UPC claimed violations of subsections 5.4a(1) and 5.4a(3) of the Act while reiterating his allegations about the June 24, 2025, meeting with HR, stating: “In June 2025, I made additional internal complaints after retaliation escalated. On June 24, 2025, when I asked HR about prior complaints, I was told they had not been reviewed and instead was informed I was under investigation - demonstrating retaliation for protected activity.” ¶

Additionally, Porter’s July 28, 2025, amended UPC alleged that on January 3, 2025, he “reported misconduct involving unauthorized reassignments and CBA violations at University Hospital” including submission of a communication from a former union representative stating that “employees could not be arbitrarily reassigned without union involvement.” He alleges that on February 5, 2025, he was “issued a disciplinary warning by Supervisor [Y.M.] who accused [him] of ‘misuse’ of the union document.” Porter alleges this disciplinary “write-up was directly connected to my protected conduct and constituted retaliatory action in violation of N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(3).” ¶

We find that these portions of Porter’s amended unfair practice charges assert retaliation for protected activities including complaints of threats by a supervisor in violation of the employee conduct policy, complaints of unauthorized reassignments in violation of the CNA, and complaints of unequal work distribution caused by nepotism/favoritism. “Protected activity under the Act may include individual conduct – such as complaints, arguments, objections, letters or similar activity - related to enforcing a collective negotiations agreement or preserving or protesting working conditions of employees in a recognized or certified unit.” Jackson Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-50, 49 NJPER 55, 58 (¶11 2022); Bloomfield Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2025-26, 51 NJPER 242 (¶57 2025); Saddle River Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2025-12, 51 NJPER 135 (¶34 2024); State of N.J., P.E.R.C. No. 2006-11, 31 NJPER 276 (¶109 2005); and North Brunswick Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 79-14, 4 NJPER 451 (¶4205 1978), aff’d, NJPER Supp.2d 63 (¶45 App. Div. 1979). ¶

An employer will violate subsection 5.4a(3) of the Act if it disciplines an employee in retaliation for protected activity. See, e.g., Belleville Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2015-79, 42 NJPER 41 (¶12 2015), aff’d, 455 N.J. Super. 387 (App. Div. 2018) (employer violated Act by imposing discipline on a teacher disproportionate to his alleged misconduct in retaliation for expressing union’s concerns about security system); Middletown Tp. Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 96-45, 22 NJPER 31 (¶27016 1995), aff’d, 23 NJPER 53 (¶28036 App. Div. 1996), certif. denied, 149 N.J. 35 (1997) (employer violated Act when it disciplined a teacher for criticizing the superintendent); and New Brunswick Bd. of Ed., P.E.R.C. No. 2024-34, 50 NJPER 318 (¶77 2024) (employer violated Act by disciplining union representative in retaliation for arguing with principal about several workplace issues). ¶

We therefore find that Porter’s UPC contains several allegations that fall within the six-month statute of limitations and concern retaliation for protected activity under the Act. In accordance with our complaint issuance standard, we find that it appears that the allegations of the charge, if true, may constitute unfair practices on the part of University Hospital, requiring formal proceedings in order to afford the parties an opportunity to litigate relevant legal and factual issues. N.J.A.C. 19:14-2.1. Accordingly, we remand to the Director for the issuance of a complaint on Porter’s 5.4a(1) and 5.4a(3) charges pertaining to the above-identified allegations that are not barred by the statute of limitations. See, e.g., Jackson Tp., P.E.R.C. No. 2022-50, supra (Commission remanded UPC to Director for issuance of a complaint on allegation that employer laid off employee in retaliation for his advocacy for himself and other employees related to terms and conditions of employment); and Essex Cty., P.E.R.C. No. 2023-29, 49 NJPER 365 (¶88 2023) (Commission remanded UPC to Director for issuance of a complaint on allegation that employer threatened employee with discipline for speech he made to union members). ¶

OrderORDER ¶

The unfair practice charge is remanded to the Director of Unfair Practices for issuance of a Complaint on Porter’s 5.4a(1) and 5.4a(3) charges consistent with this decision. ¶

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ¶

Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Davey, Eaton,Higgins,Hines, and Papero voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶

ISSUED: April 23, 2026 ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

ISSUED: Chair Hennessy-Shotter, Commissioners Davey, Eaton, Higgins, Hines, and Papero voted in favor of this decision. None opposed. ¶

Trenton, New Jersey ¶

Note1/ Porter’s UPC also included allegations against his union, Teamsters Local 97. However, the Director dismissed those claims and on August 28, 2025, the Commission denied Porter’s request for special permission to appeal that dismissal. P.E.R.C. No. 2026-5, 52 NJPER 85 (¶21 2025). ¶

2/ These provisions prohibit public employers, their representatives or agents from: “(1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act” ; and “(3) Discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage employee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the act.” ¶