EMPLOYMENT LAW: FROM A TO Z
The Firm provides advice on all areas of employment law, with an emphasis on litigation avoidance strategies, preventive personnel practices, and policy audits to ensure compliance with laws affecting the workplace. We help companies achieve efficient, cost-effective resolutions to workplace disputes.
We advise business owners on state and federal employment law, help companies deal with difficult or problem employees, draft employee handbooks and policies, draft employment agreements and separation agreements, and offer guidance to employers on all matters involving the workplace in order to help them avoid disputes. The best time to contact a lawyer is before a dispute happens.
When a problem does arise, we provide aggressive representation and work to minimize your organization’s potential risk. We vigorously defend companies accused of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wage violations.
In Re Annex Hotel v. New York State Division of Human Rights
846 N.Y.S.2d 94 (1st Dep't 2007)
The Appellate Division First Department granted the employer's petition to annul a determination by the Division of Human Rights finding it liable for an allegedly hostile work environment and awarding $250,000 in damages. As Gladstone observed, "Justice delayed is justice denied." The Court held that the employer was prejudiced by a substantial delay between the filing of the complaint and the Division of Human Rights determination and annulled the determination.
Seibert v. Lutron Electronics
No. 10-1091 (3rd Cir. 2010)
An employee filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on July 24, 2007, and another with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) on July 26, 2007, alleging discrimination based on sex and disability. She then filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, which the employer removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. At the close of discovery, the employer moved for summary judgment dismissing all of the employee’s claims. The District Court granted the employer’s motion and the employee appealed. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims by the District Court.
Petition Against the Commissioner of Labor
State of New York Industrial Board of Appeals, Docket No. PR 10-145
The employer filed a petition with the Industrial Board of Appeals to review an Order to comply under Article 19 of the Labor Law that the Commission of Labor issued against him directing him to pay a total amount due of $169,559.77 in wages due, with interest at 16% per annum calculated to the date of the order and civil penalties. After a hearing, the Board found that the Wage Order did “not reflect a reasonable or valid approximation of the hours worked” by the Claimant, whose testimony it found incredible. While the employer did not maintain the payroll records required by law, it nevertheless met its burden to disprove the employee’s claim based in part upon inconsistencies it showed in her testimony. As a result, the Wage Order was revoked and the Board found that the employer owed no wages for overtime.
Garrett v. Garden City Hotel, Inc.
No. 05-CV-0962 JFB AKT, 2007 WL 1174891 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2007)
An employee sued her former employer alleging employment discrimination on the basis of her race and age, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The employee claimed that she was passed over for promotion and was terminated as a result of her race and age, was subjected to a hostile work environment and was retaliated against for raising complaints of race and age discrimination. The employer filed a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal all of the claims. The Court granted the motion in its entirety and dismissed all of the employee’s claims.
Gateway Care Center v. John Sung, et al.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division November 6, 2014
The New Jersey Appellate Division held that an employee may be liable for taking clients to a new employer, even without an agreement not to compete, and the new employer may also be liable for being a "willing player" in the former employee's disloyal activities. The employer had sued its former employee and his new employer for disloyalty, tortious interference, and unfair competition. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissal to the employee and his new employer, and the employer appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's dismissal of the centers' disloyalty, tortious interference, and unfair competition claims, found that the employee had a duty of loyalty to the employer even if he didn't sign a covenant not to compete. While an employee may arrange for new employment with a competitor while he is still employed, he may not solicit the employer's customers or engage in other acts of secret competition while he's still employed. The court found that there was enough evidence to establish not only that the employee breached his duty of loyalty to the employer but also that executives of his new employer knew about and were "willing players" in his tortious activities.