Search form

New Jersey High Court Clarifies Disgorgement as Remedy for Breach of Duty of Loyalty

By Richard J. Cino, David M. Walsh and Eliza L. Lloyd
  • October 1, 2015

The absence of actual economic loss to an employer as a result of an employee’s breach of the duty of loyalty does not preclude the employer from being awarded the equitable remedy of disgorgement, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled. Kaye v. Rosefielde, No. A-93-13 (Sept. 22, 2015).

Background

Defendant Alan Rosefielde, an attorney, was initially retained by plaintiff Bruce Kaye to act as outside counsel in connection with Kaye’s management of several timeshare business entities. Thereafter, Rosefielde was hired, at an annual salary of $500,000, as Chief Operating Officer of some of the timeshare businesses managed by Kaye.

The evidence showed that over the course of two years, Rosefielde committed serious misconduct by acting in his own interest for purely personal gain rather than in the interest of his employer. In addition to increasing his personal interest in a newly formed entity beyond the interest agreed to by Kaye, Rosefielde exposed his employer to potential liability on many occasions. For example, rather than pursue foreclosure proceedings against defaulting timeshare unit holders, Rosefielde arranged for the defaulting owners’ signatures to be forged on false quitclaim deeds. In addition, he misrepresented independent contractors’ employment statuses when applying for health insurance, causing the insurance company to issue policies to the independent contractors. The Supreme Court noted Rosefielde also put his employer at risk of liability for sexual harassment claims because he had made many inappropriate sexual advances toward two women.

Upon discovering Rosefielde’s misconduct, Kaye terminated his employment.

Procedural History

After determining that Rosefielde’s “egregious conduct” constituted a breach of his duty of loyalty, among other things, the trial court declined to order disgorgement of Rosefielde’s salary, reasoning his breach had not resulted in actual damages to his employer.

The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, commenting only “that the trial court’s findings of fact were grounded in the record and that its legal analysis was ‘unassailable.’”

Supreme Court Decision

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that, in an appropriate case, the remedy of disgorgement may be available to an employer, even in the absence of actual loss. It cited its earlier Cameco, Inc. v. Gedicke, 157 N.J. 504 (1999), as well as comments contained in the Restatement (Second) Agency, section 469, and Restatement (Third) Agency, section 8.01.

The Court explained, “[T]he equitable remedy of disgorgement is derived from a principle of contract law.” Indeed, compensation paid to an employee during periods in which he or she is disloyal is, effectively, unearned. Recognizing the broad discretion afforded to trial courts when crafting equitable remedies, the Court stated that it was for trial courts to determine the “appropriate” case in which to grant such relief.

Offering guidance to trial courts, the Court instructed that the following non-exclusive list of factors should be considered when determining whether disgorgement is an appropriate remedy:

  • the employee’s degree of responsibility and level of compensation;
  • the number of acts of disloyalty;
  • the extent to which those acts placed the employer’s business in jeopardy; and
  • the degree of planning that is undertaken by the employee to undermine the employer.

Further, the Court stated that if the remedy of disgorgement is found to be appropriate, the breaching employee’s compensation should be apportioned such that only compensation received during periods in which the employee was acting in violation of his or her duty of loyalty would be subject to disgorgement.

Finally, the Court noted that if the trial court determined the employee had been disloyal during all pay periods, the employee’s entire salary may be subject to disgorgement.

***

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist employers concerning breach of the duty of loyalty claims and related matters. If you have questions about this or other workplace issues, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

April 16, 2019

Indiana Court Declines to Expand At-Will Employment Exception

April 16, 2019

Reaffirming Indiana’s “strong” presumption of at-will employment, the Indiana Court of Appeals has declined to expand the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine to include an employee’s mistaken belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing. Perkins v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, No. 18A-CT-... Read More

April 2, 2019

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Its ‘Similarly Situated’ Standard for Workplace Discrimination Claims

April 2, 2019

The proper standard for comparator evidence in cases alleging intentional discrimination is “similarly situated in all material aspects,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has clarified in an en banc ruling. Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., No. 15-11362, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8450 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). The... Read More

March 28, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Agency-Deference Doctrine

March 28, 2019

Should courts defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations so long as the interpretations are reasonable, even if a court believes another reasonable reading of a regulation is the better reading? In Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court... Read More

Related Practices