Gibbons Law Alert
Howard Geneslaw, a Director in the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, will be a panelist at the 2011 Land Use Update event on February 16, 2011, sponsored by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education. This all day program will provide in-depth coverage and discussions of recent developments in New Jersey land use law.
An effective anti-harassment policy has long been recognized as a key component to an employer’s avoidance of liability for sexual harassment. As the New Jersey Appellate Division recently made clear, however, the mere existence of such a policy is insufficient to insulate an employer from liability for its employee’s sexually harassing conduct. Though an unpublished decision, Allen v. Adecco, Inc., 2001 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 197 (App. Div. Jan. 27, 2011), provides a powerful reminder that to protect an employer from liability, an anti-harassment policy must be widely publicized, supported by training, and routinely enforced. Indeed, in Allen, although the employer promptly investigated plaintiff’s harassment claim and took prompt remedial action, the court ruled that the employer might still be held accountable if the harassment could have been prevented in the first place but for the employer’s alleged insufficient publication and training with regard to its anti-harassment policies.
A recent article in the New York Law Journal by the secretary of the e-discovery committee of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association underscored the confusion that remains in New York courts with respect to which party is responsible for bearing the cost of electronic document production. The article discusses cases that, on the one hand, state “what many have long believed was the rule in New York,” that “generally, the cost of [electronic] document production is borne by the party requesting the production.” Response Personnel, Inc. v. Aschenbrenner, 77 A.D.3d 518, 519, 909 N.Y.S.2d 433, 434 (1st Dept. 2010) (emphasis added). On the other hand, the First Department has also held that they “see no reason to deviate from the general rule that, during the course of the action, each party should bear the expenses it incurs in responding to discovery requests.” Clarendon Nat. Ins. Co. v. Atl. Risk Mgmt., Inc., 59 A.D.3d 284, 286, 73 N.Y.S.2d 69, 70 (1st Dept. 2009) (citing Waltzer v. Tradescape & Co., L.L.C., 31 A.D.3d 302, 819 N.Y.S.2d 38 (1st Dept. 2006)).
One perennial criticism leveled at the Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) is that it takes too long to issue permits. There have been a long list of initiatives intended to ensure that the NJDEP makes permit decisions which are predictable and timely. Indeed, Commissioner Martin has repeatedly commented on the need to ensure that NJDEP perform efficiently and focus on servicing all stakeholders – including applicants, and included this goal in his 2010 Vision Statement for the department. At long last, NJDEP appears to be taking concrete steps to implement efficiencies in the permit process. On January 27, 2011, NJDEP announced that it would begin to tackle this problem by changing the way it processes the most common land-use permits for contaminated sites and landfill closures.
Crucial to New Jersey’s Five-Year Exemption and Abatement Law is the time within which an application for the tax exemption or abatement must be filed with the municipal tax assessor. A recent Tax Court of New Jersey decision provides the first published opinion interpreting a crucial provision of the statute used to calculate such period of time. Under N.J.S.A. 40A:21-16, written application for a tax exemption or abatement must be made to the municipal tax assessor within 30 days (including Saturdays and Sundays) following the completion of an improvement, conversion alteration, or construction on the property for which tax abatement or exemption is sought. The statute defines “completion” of a project as the date on which same is “substantially ready for the intended use”.
In a decision that highlights the import of assigning or licensing intellectual property assets during corporate reorganization, a district court recently ruled that a plaintiff patentee was not entitled to lost profit damages based on the patent at issue in an infringement action. In Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corporation (CAED January 24, 2011) Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. filed suit against Cooper Cameron Corporation alleging patent infringement. Following discovery, the defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff patentee was not entitled to lost profits damages.
The U.S. Supreme Court has just decided that an employer cannot “get back” at an employee who has complained about discrimination by going after other employees related to, or in a close relationship with, the complaining employee. By ruling in favor of a man who was fired after his fiancée complained about alleged sex discrimination at the same company, the Court’s decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP has expanded Title VII anti-retaliation jurisprudence to encompass employees who themselves do not engage in “protected activity” as defined by the statute. Finding that the fiancée fell within the “zone of interests” of protection afforded by Title VII, he thus qualified as a “person aggrieved with standing to sue.” The decision is significant for employers because it establishes important precedent authorizing retaliation claims by employees other than the employee who made the original complaint of discrimination. Employers should make sure that their written anti-retaliation policies make clear to managers and supervisors that, after a claim of discrimination has been made, it is against company policy to retaliate not only against the employee making the claim but against any employee related to, or in a close relationship with, the complaining party.
Douglas Janacek and Russell Bershad, Co-Chairs of Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department were each recognized as leading real estate practitioners in recent industry publications. Doug was one of 12 lawyers to be included in a feature story on the leading real estate attorneys in the state in New Jersey & Company’s November/December issue.
Under a newly enacted City of Philadelphia Ordinance, some tenants in properties developed with financial assistance by the City of Philadelphia may now be required to comply with a minimum wage requirement that is 150% of the federal minimum wage. Benefits provided to full-time employees of tenants may also be impacted.
Experienced New Jersey developers and land use attorneys understand the challenges that face an applicant when the proposed use is not expressly permitted in the municipality’s zoning district wherethe subject property is located. The challenge is only more complicated if the proposed use involves novel or unfamiliar technology such as renewable energy. However, in New Jersey, the government has been proactive in welcoming renewable energy projects through grants and legislation, making New Jersey definitely the place to be if you want to develop property geared towards the creation of a renewable energy facility powered by solar or wind.