The U.S. District Court of New Jersey recently reaffirmed that under New Jersey’s whistleblower law, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), a plaintiff asserting that her employer’s conduct is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health must identify the applicable law, rule, or regulation prior to summary judgment. In Tinio v. St. Joseph Regional Medical Center, No. 13-829-JLL-JAD (D.N.J. April 6, 2015), the plaintiff, a former nurse at defendant-hospital, alleged that she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about a lack of patient care associates on the unit to which she was assigned. The plaintiff identified accreditation guidelines—that she believed the defendant violated—for the first time in her opposition brief to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the plaintiff had not engaged in any protected whistleblowing activity because she failed to identify a law, rule, or regulation that she reasonably believed the defendant had violated when she initially complained, in her complaint, or when pressed at her deposition.