for applying a broader interpretation of N.J.S.A. 34:19-2(b) than the application of Pukowsky’s test would allow. By the same token, in rejecting the adoption of a test that would exclude all independent contractors, all temporary workers, and all workers who are not permitted the employment benefits mentioned in the Pukowsky test, we recognize that CEPA was not intended to provide protection for all individuals with a working relationship with an employer, but only those vulnerable to retaliation. That is, some workers are contractually positioned in a way that frees them from the fear of termination or other forms of retaliation, and have no critical need for CEPA’s protections. See, e.g., Casamasino v. City of Jersey City, 304 N.J.Super. 226, 241-42, 699 A.2d 697 (App.Div.1997) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 158 N.J. 333, 730
holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division holding that a tenured tax assessor was not entitled to pursue a cepa action because he could only be removed from office by the director of the division of taxation holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity recognizing the transition of the administrative hearing process from the division of motor vehicles to the office of administrative hearings holding that the director of the office of domestic relations was a judicial agency pursuant to the rtkl because the director was administrative staff of the unified judicial system as defined in the judicial code 42 pacs  102