Ivonne Saavedra .jpg
Ivonne Saavedra appears with her attorney, Mario Blanch, in court in 2012.
(Jersey Journal file photo)
TRENTON -- In a ruling that could have broad implications for whistleblower cases, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a North Bergen school board employee can be indicted for taking confidential documents from the district even though she allegedly planned to use them in a discrimination lawsuit she filed against the board.
New Jersey's highest court voted 6-1 to deny Ivonne Saavedra's motion to dismiss the theft and official misconduct charges against her.
Saavedra, a clerk for the Hudson County township's school board, filed a lawsuit in 2009 allegedly that she was the victim of gender, ethnic, and sexual discrimination.
Her attorney later produced hundreds of documents that Saavedra took or copied from the school district to use in her case, according to court papers. The school board said the documents included "highly confidential student educational and medical records that were protected by federal and state privacy laws," court papers say.
Saavedra was indicted in 2012 on charges of official misconduct and theft for allegedly stealing the documents. She faced a possible sentence of 5 to 10 years in prison.
Saavedra dropped her lawsuit against the board out of fear her testimony might be used against her in the criminal case. But she moved to dismiss the indictment. arguing the state failed to present sufficient evidence and withheld evidence about her motive in taking the documents from the grand jury.
Both a state Superior Court judge and a three-judge appellate panel ruled against her. Saavedra then petitioned the state Supreme Court to hear the case.
The high court agreed with the lower courts. The justices noted that the state properly presented evidence to the grand jury that indicted Saavedra, including how the school board trains employees that such documents are "highly confidential and must not be tampered with."
The court also dismissed Saavedra's argument that she was allowed to take documents under the state Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. That decision says an employee has a legal right to take confidential documents from their employer to use in employment discrimination cases "and, accordingly, criminal prosecution for that act is barred by due process principles and public policy."
"However, the Court's decision in Quinlan did not endorse self-help as an alternative to the legal process in employment discrimination litigation. Nor did Quinlan address any issue of criminal law," Justice Anne Patterson wrote for the court in Tuesday's ruling. "Indeed, nothing in Quinlan states or implies that the anti-discrimination policy of the (state's Law of Discrimination) immunizes from prosecution an employee who takes his or her employer's documents for use in a discrimination case."
The court sent the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Justice Barry Albin was the lone justice who voted against Tuesday's ruling. He argued that Saavedra's motive for removing the documents was not disclosed to the grand jury and that the prosecutor "suppressed relevant information sought by the grand jury, thereby denying defendant her right to a fair grand jury presentation."
Mario Blanch, Saavedra's attorney, said the ruling is "very dangerous."
"It leaves whistleblowers in a state of perpetual danger," the West New York-based lawyer said.
But Lynne Anderson, an attorney with Drinker Biddle & Reath in Florham Park, said that many lawyers believe the Quinlan decision from 2010 gives defendants "a free pass" to take documented as long as they explain they did so for an discrimination lawsuit.
"The court addressed that head on and said, 'No, that's not right,'" Anderson said. "The employers' right also need to be balanced. Not all claims are legitimate claims."
Still, Peter Verniero, the former state Supreme Court Justice and state Attorney General, said it's too soon to tell what the decision means for other whistleblower cases. He said the ruling "carefully notes the manner in which a litigant can properly obtain or preserve information for use in a civil lawsuit."
"So we will have to wait and see what the impact of this case might be in future contexts," said Verniero, who is now an attorney with Newark law firm Sills Cummis & Gross.
Brent Johnson may be reached at bjohnson@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @johnsb01. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.