N.J.: Employer Can Sue Disloyal Employee Without Showing Economic Loss

By Jonathan Sokolowski Oct 28, 2015

An employer need not demonstrate that it suffered an economic loss in order to recoup the wages of a disloyal employee, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled. The court explained that courts have the equitable power to require an employee to repay his or her salary for any pay periods during which the employee was disloyal.


In 2002, Bruce Kaye hired Alan Rosefielde to serve as the chief operating officer and general counsel of several timeshare business entities that Kaye managed. Dissatisfied with Rosefielde’s performance, and upon discovering that Rosefielde had engaged in a pattern of unauthorized self-dealing and other actions that exposed Kaye’s businesses to potential liability, Kaye terminated Rosefielde’s employment in January 2005.

Kaye then sued Rosefielde for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, legal malpractice, unauthorized practice of law, and breach of the duty of loyalty. Relying on evidence that Rosefielde engaged in unauthorized and fraudulent business transactions for his own benefit, made inappropriate sexual advances towards female employees and submitted a $4,000 non-business-related expense for a Las Vegas hotel stay with three adult film stars, a trial court determined that Rosefielde’s conduct constituted, among other things, a breach of his duty of loyalty. Although the trial court awarded compensatory damages, it declined to order the repayment of Rosefielde’s $500,000 annual salary because his breach of the duty of loyalty did not cause any damage or loss to Kaye’s businesses. After the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to determine whether disgorgement of a disloyal employee’s salary can be awarded absent a showing of economic loss.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Decision

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that equitable disgorgement is an available remedy in New Jersey even where there is no finding of economic loss to the employer. The Court explained that the “[t]he disgorgement remedy is consonant with the purpose of a breach of the duty of loyalty claim: to secure the loyalty that the employer is entitled to expect when he or she hires and compensates an employee.” Simply stated, an employee “is not entitled to be paid when he has not provided the loyalty bargained for and promised.”

Significantly, the court pointed to “the valuable deterrent effect” of disgorgement because its availability may signal to potential bad actors that their breach of the duty of loyalty will result in “adverse consequences.”

The court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether Rosefielde’s conduct warrants disgorgement considering the following factors: 1) “the employee’s degree of responsibility and level of compensation;” 2) “the number of acts of disloyalty;” 3) “the extent to which those acts placed the employer’s business in jeopardy;” and 4) “the degree of planning to undermine the employer that is undertaken by the employee.”

The court stated that if disgorgement is warranted, it should be ordered for all pay periods during which the employee was disloyal. The court noted that, in some cases, an employee’s entire salary may be clawed back.

Kaye v. Rosefielde, N.J., No A-93-13 (Sept. 22, 2015).

Professional Pointer: The court’s ruling is a welcome decision for New Jersey employers. It provides a potentially potent remedy against a disloyal employee, especially one entrusted with significant discretion and authority.

Jonathan Sokolowski is an attorney in the New York office of Sheppard Mullin. Republished with permission. © 2015 Sheppard Mullin. All rights reserved.

Job Finder

Find an HR Job Near You
Post a Job


Find the Right Vendor for Your HR Needs

SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 10,000 companies

Search & Connect