McVey v. AtlantiCare Medical System, Inc.

276 A.3d 677, 472 N.J. Super. 278 (2022)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

McVey v. AtlantiCare Medical System, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
276 A.3d 677, 472 N.J. Super. 278 (2022)

Facts

Heather McVey (plaintiff) worked as a customer-service director for AtlantiCare Medical System, Inc. (AtlantiCare) (defendant). McVey was an at-will employee. AtlantiCare had a social-media policy that covered employees’ use of AtlantiCare-controlled social-media accounts and employees’ personal social-media accounts. The policy stated that employees who publicly identified themselves as AtlantiCare employees should present themselves online how they would present themselves to colleagues or clients. The policy also instructed employees to be respectful, including avoiding ethnic slurs, personal insults, and obscenity and taking care when discussing objectionable or inflammatory topics. McVey had a personal Facebook account that listed her name as “Jayne Heather” but included McVey’s picture. The profile identified McVey as an AtlantiCare corporate director and stated that McVey had previously worked as an AtlantiCare nurse. In 2020, during the nationwide demonstrations following the death of George Floyd, McVey participated in a Facebook discussion regarding the Black Lives Matter movement. During the discussion, McVey stated, among other things, that (1) the Black Lives Matter movement was racist and caused segregation, (2) Black people were killing themselves, (3) all lives mattered to McVey as a nurse, and (4) McVey did not condone the rioting that had occurred in response to “this specific Black man’s” (i.e., Floyd’s) death. An AtlantiCare administrator discovered McVey’s Facebook posts and met with McVey to discuss the matter. AtlantiCare suspended McVey pending an investigation into the Facebook posts and ultimately terminated McVey for exhibiting poor management judgment and failing to uphold AtlantiCare’s values. McVey sued AtlantiCare in New Jersey state court, asserting that the termination had punished McVey for exercising her rights to free speech under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. McVey alleged that AtlantiCare had wrongfully discharged her in violation of New Jersey public policy. AtlantiCare moved to dismiss, asserting that McVey could not base her wrongful-termination claim on an alleged free-speech violation because AtlantiCare was a private employer and not a state actor. The trial court dismissed McVey’s complaint, and McVey appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Haas, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership