A.2d 1205 (App.Div.1998) (“[T]he jury may not [determine the issue before it] based on its own notion of ... unlawfulness[.]”) It is incumbent upon the claimant, therefore, to furnish the trial court with enough by way of proof and legal basis to enable the court to determine as a matter of law, on a threshold basis, that a statute, rule, or public policy would have been violated if the jury were to find that the conduct plaintiff alleges actually occurred. Only after the court identifies the asserted violation with adequate particularity may the jury consider the objective reasonableness of the plaintiffs belief that Ms or her information indicated the actual occurrence of such a violation. Schechter v. Div. of Gaming Enforcement, 327 N.J.Super. 428, 432, 743 A.2d 872 (App.Div.2000) (<HOLDING>); Falco v. Community Med. Ctr., 296 N.J.Super.
holding cepa claim to have been properly dismissed because the challenged conduct was contrary to employees principles or sense of company priorities but was not illegal or wrongful holding cepa claim to have been properly dismissed due to the absence of such a public policy holding that where litigation involves more than one claim the origin of the claim test must be applied separately to each part holding cepa claim to have been properly dismissed because employees general invocation of federal labor and tax law was inadequate basis for reasonable belief in illegal activity holding cepa claim to have been properly dis missed because the court found that the disclosure involves nothing more than a policy dispute