In State v. Saavedra, 81 A.3d 693 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013) (No. A-1449-12T4), the appellate court affirmed an indictment for official misconduct and theft against a former employee of the North Bergen Board of Education.  Prior to the indictment, the employee had filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education alleging gender, ethnic and sex discrimination as well retaliatory discharge.  The complaint was filed under, among other statutes, New Jersey’s whistleblower law and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).  During discovery, it was discovered that the employee took over 350 documents, including some original documents, before she left the Board of Education.  The Board of Education alerted the local prosecutor, and the prosecutor convened a grand jury, which indicted the employee.  In challenging her indictment, the employee argued that a New Jersey Supreme Court decision Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 204 N.J. 239 (2010) granted workers with employment discrimination lawsuits an “absolute right” to take possibly incriminating documents from their employers.  In affirming the indictment, the appellate court first held that Quinlan did not establish a bright-line rule that allowed an employee to take the employer’s confidential documents.  Rather, Quinlan outlined a multi-factor balancing test and made clear that employees who engaged in self-help were subject to significant risks if their conduct was not protected.  Here, the appellate court held that the employee could not satisfy that test, including among other things, that she failed to demonstrate how the documents she took were related to her case, and thusQuinlan did not protect her actions.