223 N.J.Super. at 446, 538 A.2d 1292; Kalman v. Grand Union Co., supra, 183 N.J.Super. at 157-59, 443 A.2d 728; O’Sullivan v. Mallon, supra, 160 N.J.Super. at 418-19, 390 A.2d 149. In some cases, however, the employee may show that the retaliation is based on the employee’s exercise of certain established rights, violating a clear mandate of public policy. Hennessey, supra, 129 N.J. at 91, 102-03, 106-07, 609 A.2d 11 (determining that discharge of employee for failing (or refusing to take) a random test for illegal drug use implicates a clear mandate of public policy protecting individual privacy rights, but holding that discharge was lawful where employee served in a safety-sensitive position); Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189, 192, 536 A.2d 237 (1988) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Lally v. Copygraphics, supra, 85 N.J. at
holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to gender discrimination and retaliation claims where she had only asserted discrimination based on race and disability in her eeoc complaint holding race and gender discrimination claim barred holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her gender discrimination claim because she only checked the boxes for age discrimination and retaliation holding that employee demanding her personnel file stated cause of action under the law against discrimination njsa 105 by alleging that she was discharged for seeking to establish a gender discrimination claim holding that a plaintiff could not assert a  1981 claim based on gender discrimination