Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Author: Richard S. Zackin

Employers Must Make Sure They Have Evidence of Employee’s Receipt of FMLA Notices

by

Posted in Family Leave

On August 14, 2014

In a recent case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., an employee who did not return to work until after her 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) had expired was able to avoid summary judgment against her because her employer was unable to come up with any hard evidence that she had actually received the FMLA notices mailed to her while on leave. The decision is a clear warning to employers that they run a real risk in FMLA litigation that notices sent by ordinary mail to an employee on leave may not carry the day.

New Executive Orders Impact Government Contractors in Their Capacity as Employers

by

Posted in Discrimination

On August 11, 2014

President Obama recently signed two Executive Orders that impact government contractors in their capacity as employers. Executive Order 13672 (July 21, 2014) amends Executive Order 11246 (September 24, 1965) by adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of personal characteristics that cannot be used by government contractors to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment. As originally issued, Executive Order 11246 proscribed discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin – characteristics protected by Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Sexual orientation and gender identity are not specifically identified in Title VII as protected characteristics. These Executive Orders also apply to subcontractors and vendors of government contractors. Executive Order 13672 leaves in tact an earlier amendment to Executive Order 11246 that granted an exemption for government contractors qualifying as religious organizations in terms of the ability of these organizations to hire individuals of a given religion. The Department of Labor is charged with issuing regulations within 90 days implementing the new Executive Order.

New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies Whistleblower Law

by

Posted in Whistleblower

On July 10, 2014

In June 2014, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Hitesman v. Bridgeway, Inc., affirmed the decision of a lower appellate court dismissing a claim brought by a healthcare worker under the New Jersey whistleblower law, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. § 34:19-1 et seq. (CEPA). The decision is significant because the Supreme Court clarified the role of a trial court on the issue of whether a plaintiff has sufficiently identified a rule of law or a public policy that provides the necessary foundation for a CEPA claim.

New Jersey Appellate Court Upholds Agreements Shortening the Statute of Limitations for Employment-Related Claims

by

Posted in Employment Agreements

On June 25, 2014

On June 19, 2014, in Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the validity of a provision in an employment application form by which the job applicant agreed that, if hired, he or she would bring any employment-related claim within 6 months after the claim arose. Plaintiff alleged he was terminated because of a disability in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) and in retaliation for having filed a workers compensation claim. The Appellate Division held that because the plaintiff brought these claims 9 months after his termination they were barred by the 6-month limitations period in the application form even though they were brought well within the 2-year statute of limitations period otherwise applicable to these types of claims.

EEOC Focusing on Telecommuting as a Reasonable Accommodation

by

Posted in Disability

On May 21, 2014

The EEOC is heralding a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Equal Opportunity Employment Commission v. Ford Motor Co., a case in which the agency brought suit on behalf of a Ford employee who alleged she was terminated in retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. In her charge, the employee alleged Ford violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by not allowing her to telecommute to work. The district court granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment, but, in a 2-to-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the EEOC had presented evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment that (a) by requesting to telecommute the employee had sought a reasonable accommodation for her disability and (b) the alternative accommodations offered by the company were insufficient. Of concern to employers is the little weight given by the majority opinion to the employer’s business judgment that the employee’s presence in the workplace was an essential function of her job.

Supreme Court Rules that Employees of Private Contractors Can Qualify as Whistleblowers Under Sarbanes-Oxley

by

Posted in Whistleblower

On March 7, 2014

On March 4, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Lawson v. FMR LLC, resolving a dispute over the scope of the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7201, et seq. (“SOX”). Private contractors and subcontractors of public companies should give their attention to this decision. Although SOX is generally thought of as a statute that regulates public companies and their employees, the Lawson decision extends SOX’s whistleblower provisions to cover private companies and their employees as well.

EEOC Challenges Separation/Release Agreements

by

Posted in Employment Agreements

On February 28, 2014

It is common practice for employers in the process of terminating employees to present separation agreements that offer the employees severance benefits in exchange for a general release of claims. On February 2, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) filed suit in federal court in Chicago against the CVS drugstore chain, alleging that, since August 2011, CVS has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 et seq.) by using separation agreements for their non-store employees that unlawfully interfere with the rights of these employees to file charges of discrimination with the Commission.

A New Jersey Federal Court Holds that the Stored Communications Act Applies to “Wall Posts” on Facebook

by

Posted in Privacy and Data Security

On September 4, 2013

The Federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (“SCA”), makes it unlawful to, among other things, “intentionally access[] without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided.” Violators are subject to imprisonment and fines, and the statute expressly authorizes a civil action for damages, injunctive relief and attorneys fees. A federal court in New Jersey has now held that the statute may apply to those who access information posted by a Facebook account holder on his or her Facebook “wall.” The defendant-employer in the case, Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. (“MONOC”), was able to avoid liability under the SCA because the plaintiff could not establish that her employer violated the “without authorization” component of the statute. Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. But the case puts employers on notice that they must tread carefully in this area.

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Windsor Striking Down DOMA Will Expand Workplace Protections for Employees in Legally Recognized Same-Sex Marriages

by and

Posted in Employee Benefits

On July 2, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a critical decision on June 26, 2013, striking down a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) that limited the definition of marriage for federal purposes to unions of opposite-sex couples. The Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor will have far-reaching implications for employers, at least in those states that recognize same-sex marriages, in terms of leave administration, benefits eligibility and workplace protections. In another case decided the same day, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court let stand a Federal District Court ruling in California that an amendment to the California Constitution limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was unconstitutional. In neither case did the Court require all states to recognize same-sex marriages.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decides Who is a “Supervisor” for Title VII Purposes

by

Posted in Discrimination

On June 25, 2013

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Vance v. Ball State University, one of the most-anticipated decisions of the Court’s 2012 Term. The Vance case concerns who is considered a “supervisor” for purposes of establishing an employer’s liability for hostile work environment harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, from which the case arose, and other lower courts which had defined “supervisor” to include only those individuals who possess the authority to fire, demote, promote, transfer, discipline or take some other tangible action against a harassment victim. The Court rejected the definition of “supervisor” proposed by the federal government, appearing as amicus curiae, and found in the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidelines, which links “supervisor” status to the ability to exercise direction over the victim’s daily work.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories