George D’annunzio, D.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, and George D’annunzio, D.C., Professional Association, Plaintiff, v…

Summary

The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal of the trial court’s summary judgment, holding that the Pukowsky test is the proper framework for determining "employee" status under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and that the trial court erred in granting judgment for the insurer. The majority reaffirmed that CEPA’s remedial purpose requires a liberal construction of the employee definition, focusing on control, economic dependence, and functional integration. Justice Rivera‑Soto dissented, arguing that the statutory language plainly limits CEPA protection to traditional employees and that the majority’s expansion is unwarranted.