Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

New York City Now Requires Reasonable Accommodation of Pregnant Employees

On October 24, 2013

On October 2, 2013, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed into law Int. No. 974-2012A, amending the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) to prohibit discrimination in employment based on pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition. The law goes into effect on January 30, 2014. It prohibits an employer from refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation to the needs of an employee for her pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition that will allow the employee to perform the essential requisites of the job. According to the New York City Council’s legislative findings accompanying the amendment, reasonable accommodations for an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition may include “bathroom breaks, leave for a period of disability arising from childbirth, breaks to facilitate increased water intake, periodic rest for those who stand for long periods of time, and assistance with manual labor.”

The Third Circuit Parts Ways with the Second Circuit When it Comes to Contribution Rights Under CERCLA

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On October 23, 2013

In Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that a party that has resolved its environmental liability only under state law may nevertheless pursue contribution from other responsible parties under the federal CERCLA statute, at least in some instances. Trinity was the owner of an industrial property from 1988 to 2000. In 2006, the State of Pennsylvania initiated an enforcement action against Trinity, which prompted the former property owner to enter a Consent Order with the State’s Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (“HSCA”) and Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act (“LRA”). Under the Consent Order, Trinity agreed to fund and conduct response actions at the property, but expressly reserved its right to pursue cost recovery and contribution against other responsible parties. Subsequently, Trinity brought a contribution action against Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. (“CB&I”), also a former property owner, under § 113(f)(3)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).

Updated California Online Privacy Laws Require Disclosure of “Do Not Track” Policies

by Thomas J. Bean

Posted in E-Commerce / Privacy and Data Security

On October 23, 2013

Recently, California Assembly Bill No. 370 (AB370) was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. AB 370 amends California’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (OPPA) to require that the privacy policy provided by the operator of a website and online service describe how the operator will respond to consumer-initiated mechanisms for controlling the collection of consumer personally identifiable information (PII).

The Sixth Circuit Reaffirms its Holding in Glazer v. Whirlpool Allowing Plaintiffs with Moldy Washers to Proceed United as a Class

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 21, 2013

The litigations involving allegedly defective Whirlpool washing machines are back in the legal headlines with the most recent installment hailing from the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp., a decision which—following remand from the Supreme Court of the United States—reaffirmed a prior order certifying a class action lawsuit. The Sixth Circuit’s certification order may, however, face scrutiny from the Supreme Court once again.

Gibbons Russell Bershad Named Among Top 5 Real Estate Attorneys in New Jersey by the News Funnel

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Transactional Real Estate and Leasing

On October 21, 2013

Russell B. Bershad, Co-Chair of the Gibbons Real Property & Environmental Department, has been named among the Top 5 real estate attorneys in New Jersey in a recent FunnelCast survey conducted by The News Funnel. Mr. Bershad has previously been recognized as a leading Real Estate lawyer by his peers in such publications as New Jersey Super Lawyers, Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Business Lawyers, and Best Lawyers in America.

Jersey City Ordinance Mandates Paid Sick Leave

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Employee Benefits

On October 18, 2013

On September 25, 2013, the City of Jersey City became the first municipality in New Jersey to pass paid sick leave legislation. City Ordinance 13.097, which takes effect on January 23, 2014, makes Jersey City the seventh U.S. state or municipality to enact legislation mandating paid sick leave. Previously, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland passed similar laws. The District of Columbia and the state of Connecticut have also passed such legislation. The Jersey City ordinance mandates that individuals employed by employers with 10 or more employees accrue 1 hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to a maximum accrual of 40 hours. Those individuals employed by employers with less than 10 employees will accrue sick time under the same formula, however it need not be paid.

Rutgers Pharma MBA Program Ranked One of Best in World

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Pharmaceuticals

On October 17, 2013

Rutgers Business School’s MBA in Pharmaceutical Management was recently ranked as one of the top 10 MBA programs for Health Care/Pharmaceuticals/Biotechnology in the world, based on a survey done by Find-MBA.com. According to a press release from Rutgers, the program earned its ranking due to its success in assisting MBA grads to earn internships and jobs focused in the health care, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries. This was a function of the quality of the program, complemented by Rutgers Business School’s proximity to, and relationship with, top tier pharmaceutical companies and several large hospitals in the region.

How Will the Supreme Court’s Decision in American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant Impact Class Action Litigation

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 16, 2013

In American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the Supreme Court recently furthered its holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion by making it clear that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not permit courts to invalidate contractual waivers of class arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff’s cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery. Italian Colors reflects the “overarching principle that arbitration is a matter of contract,” and that “courts must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms,” including terms that specify “with whom the parties will arbitrate,” as well as “the rules under which arbitration will be conducted.”

New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Claimants in Continuous-Trigger Environmental Coverage Cases Must Exhaust Policy Limits of Solvent Carriers Before Seeking Payment From Fund for Insolvent Carriers

by Paul M. Hauge

Posted in Environmental and Green Issues

On October 15, 2013

Almost twenty years after establishing a methodology for allocating remediation costs among insurance policies in so-called “long-tail” cases, the New Jersey Supreme Court was faced with a new question: what happens when one of the insurers is insolvent? Applying a 2004 statutory amendment and interpreting it as reversing the result in a 1997 Appellate Division case, the Court held, in Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Salem v. New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association that in such a case the policy limits of all solvent carriers must be exhausted before a claimant can recover any benefits from a special statutory fund created to stand in the place of insolvent insurers. The decision has important ramifications for corporations with complex insurance programs and potential environmental issues regarding sites where contamination may have been present over many years.

Lessons to Learn in the Wake of the Sixth Circuit’s Decision Upsetting the Class Settlement in the Dry Max Pampers Litigation

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Class Action Defense

On October 11, 2013

There have been a flurry of federal appellate court decisions this year and last scrutinizing and overturning class settlements (see In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig. and Radcliffe v. Experian, merely by way of example). That trend continued on August 2, 2013, with In re Dry Max Pampers Litigation, a case involving Pampers marketed with “Dry Max technology,” where the Sixth Circuit upset a settlement awarding class counsel $2.73 million in attorneys’ fees and the named plaintiffs $1,000 “per ‘affected child.’” The Court found it offered the class representatives and class counsel “preferential treatment” at the expense of unnamed class members, who received nothing save what the Sixth Circuit characterized as “worthless injunctive relief.” Though the latest decisions out of the Third and Seventh Circuits addressing the bona fides of attorneys’ fee awards in class settlements — see Kirsch v. Delta Dental and Silverman v. Motorola — held that the deals there passed muster, both sides of the bar would be well served by taking note of what went wrong in In re Dry Max.