Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

On October 23, 2018

In Roman v. Bergen Logistics, LLC, the Appellate Division recently held that a plaintiff was required to arbitrate her claims of sexual harassment and retaliation with her former employer. The court also held, however, that the arbitration agreement’s contractual provision that barred the employee’s access to punitive damages was unenforceable. Background Plaintiff Milagros Roman was hired by the defendant, Bergen Logistics, as a human resources generalist. She signed an arbitration agreement at the outset of her employment. In addition to requiring Roman to arbitrate any and all claims related to her employment, the arbitration agreement compelled her to waive any claim for punitive damages. After her termination, Roman filed a complaint in New Jersey Superior Court alleging that her former supervisor sexually harassed her, created a hostile work environment, and retaliated against her in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The defendants moved to dismiss Roman’s complaint and compel her to arbitrate her claims. The Law Division found that Roman knowingly signed the arbitration agreement and that the agreement contained an unambiguous waiver of claims for punitive damages. Accordingly, that court held that Roman was required to submit her claims to arbitration and could not seek punitive damages. Roman timely appealed. The Appellate Division’s Decision The Appellate Division held that the arbitration...

U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement to Promote Innovation in Biotechnology

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Biotech / Pharmaceuticals

On October 18, 2018

On September 30, 2018, the United States, Mexico, and Canada reached an agreement in principle to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The pending United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) includes provisions governing the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. This blog post will cover the IP provisions of the USMCA, particularly as applied to pharmaceuticals and biologics. It’s important to note that the provisions of the USMCA prescribe a minimum requirement, some of which is already met or surpassed by the individual countries’ respective patent regimes. 1. Data protection for biologics Under Article 20.F.14, each country must provide, with respect “to the first marketing approval” of a product that “is or contains a biologic,” protection of undisclosed test or other data concerning the safety and efficacy of the product for “a period of at least ten years from the date of first marketing approval of that product.” This ten-year data exclusivity applies “at a minimum” to “a product that is produced using biotechnology processes and that is, or, alternatively, contains, a virus, therapeutic serum, toxin, antitoxin, vaccine, blood, blood component or derivative, allergenic product, protein, or analogous product, for use in human beings for the prevention, treatment, or cure of a disease or condition.” Under Article 20.K.1, this provision need not be implemented until...

Third Circuit Relies on Spokeo to Shed Light on What is Needed For Article III Injury-in-Fact Standing

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in General Litigation

On October 16, 2018

In Long v. SEPTA, the Third Circuit considered whether and when a violation of a statute is a standing-conferring injury-in-fact satisfying the Constitution’s “case or controversy” requirement. At issue in Long was whether the plaintiffs, who were denied employment by SEPTA when background checks disclosed disqualifying criminal histories, could sue SEPTA for failing to provide them with copies of their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and copies of their background consumer reports before being denied employment, both of which are required by FCRA. The district court dismissed the complaint, stating that the plaintiffs did not allege a “concrete injury in fact,” because the alleged FCRA violations were “bare procedural violations.” On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claim based on SEPTA’s failure to provide the plaintiffs notice of their FCRA rights. The Court held that, because the plaintiffs understood their rights well enough to bring the suit, they were not injured by SEPTA’s failure to give them notice of those rights and, therefore, lacked standing to pursue the claim. But the Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claim based on SEPTA’s failure to provide copies of the plaintiffs’ consumer reports. The Third Circuit applied the two tests “for whether an intangible injury can be . . . concrete”...

Recent ERISA Preemption Decision in District of New Jersey Marks Departure from Prior Precedent

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Insurance

On October 15, 2018

In Glastein v. Aetna, Inc., et al., the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, departing from several recent decisions in the District, denied Defendant Aetna, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a medical provider’s claim for reimbursement of insurance benefits on the ground that such claim was preempted by ERISA. Glastein, an out-of-network orthopedic surgeon, allegedly performed a medically necessary surgery for an Aetna-insured patient. Prior to the surgery, Glastein secured a written authorization for the service from Aetna. Glastein later billed Aetna $209,000, allegedly the “normal and reasonable” charges for the procedure. Aetna did not pay any portion of the charged amount. Glastein sued Aetna, alleging several state common law claims, including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, accounting, and fraudulent inducement. After removing the action from the Superior Court of New Jersey to the District of New Jersey, Aetna moved to dismiss Glastein’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant’s sole argument for dismissal was that Plaintiff’s state-law causes of action were expressly preempted by ERISA’s “express preemption” provision, under which ERISA preempts state laws where the state law refers to an ERISA plan or has an impermissible connection with an ERISA plan. In support of its preemption argument, Aetna cited to several recent decisions where the District dismissed complaints alleging...

In Affirming Dismissal of Putative Securities Class Action, Third Circuit Provides Important Guidance for Evaluating Sufficiency of Scienter Allegations

by Samuel I. Portnoy

Posted in Securities

On October 4, 2018

A recent precedential decision from the Third Circuit may make it more difficult for putative securities class actions to withstand motions to dismiss and provides useful guidance for district courts in making the often difficult determination whether a complaint adequately pleads the strong inference of scienter necessary to sustain a federal securities fraud claim. In In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., certain pension funds brought a securities fraud class action alleging that Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and certain of its current and former executives violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs’ complaint relied heavily on a financial restatement Hertz issued with its fiscal year 2014 Form 10-K, which corrected errors to Hertz’s 2011, 2012, and 2013 financial statements. According to the restatement, Hertz had overstated its pre-tax income by a total of $215 million and its net income by a total of $132 million during the three-year period. The restatement explained that “an inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate tone at the top was present under then existing senior management” which “resulted in an environment which in some instances may have led to inappropriate accounting decisions and the failure to disclose information critical to . . . effective review.” Plaintiffs alleged that the restatement constituted an admission that...

NJABC Suspends New Limited Brewery Rules

by Michael D. DeLoreto and Jennifer P. Smith

Posted in Liquor Licensing / Regulatory Counseling and Departmental Action

On October 3, 2018

Less than two weeks after issuing it, the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (NJABC) has suspended its Special Ruling that imposed new regulations on Limited Brewery Licensees. The Special Ruling released in late September included restrictions on, among other things, special events and entertainment at Limited Breweries. In its announcement, the NJABC stated that the suspension of the restrictions will provide the opportunity to engage in further conversations with craft breweries and other alcoholic beverage license holders about the impact of the Special Ruling. The NJABC is also poised to work with state legislators to determine whether new legislation is needed to update the law that prompted the Special Ruling.

Non-Competes – A Focus of New York Attorney General

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Restrictive Covenants

On September 28, 2018

Non-compete agreements clearly are the subject of scrutiny by the New York Attorney General’s office, which just issued guidance called “Non-Compete Agreements In New York State – Frequently Asked Questions” (“Guidance”). The Guidance, in the form of FAQs, generally describes New York common law regarding enforceability of non-competition provisions in employment contracts or standalone restrictive covenant agreements. It notes that a court has the ability to invalidate or modify an overly-broad non-compete. It also provides guidance to employees regarding whether to sign a non-compete, which it states is not a legal requirement but only a potential mandate of an employer. The Guidance includes a list of considerations for employees before they sign a non-compete. Further, it provides contact information within the New York Attorney General’s Office for individuals to obtain assistance to address unreasonable non-competes. Finally, the Guidance describes Attorney General-proposed legislation to prohibit non-competes for workers earning below $75,000 per year. The Attorney General issued the Guidance after a recent matter it handled in which it obtained prospective compliance by an employer regarding its use of non-competes. The matter is the subject of an Attorney General press release. It is imperative that employers who use restrictive covenants in employment agreements and standalone restrictive covenants review their forms and procedures to comply with applicable law....

EPA Provides Guidance to BFPPs Regarding Their Ability to Receive Reimbursement from EPA Superfund Special Accounts

by Gibbons P.C.

Posted in Development/Redevelopment / Environmental and Green Issues

On September 27, 2018

One underused provision in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) makes Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Special Accounts available for reimbursement to Bona Fide Prospective Purchasers (BFPPs). This provision has received greater scrutiny by EPA following the creation of the Superfund Task Force (“Task Force”) in May 2017, and BFPPs should carefully consider the potential benefits that Superfund Special Accounts might provide. The Task Force includes senior representatives from different EPA Regional Offices with responsibility for Superfund policy and enforcement. EPA created the Task Force to streamline and strengthen the Superfund program. In July 2017, the Task Force issued a report containing five goals and 42 recommendations. The full report is available here. Goal number two in the report is to reinvigorate responsible party cleanup and reuse of Superfund sites. One of the specific recommendations relating to this goal is to maximize the use of special accounts to facilitate site cleanup and/or redevelopment. EPA has begun to implement this recommendation with the issuance of a March 27, 2018 memorandum to its Regional Offices entitled: “Guidance on Disbursement of Funds from EPA Special Accounts to Entities Performing CERCLA Response Actions.” The full memorandum is available here. On July 23, 2018, EPA issued an update to its Task Force report in which it stated...

NJABC Issues New Grand Opening Permit, Limited Brewery Rules

by Jennifer P. Smith and Michael D. DeLoreto

Posted in Liquor Licensing / Regulatory Counseling and Departmental Action

On September 26, 2018

The New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (NJABC) has recently issued two notices to the regulated community – the first notice impacting all consumption licensees hosting a Grand Opening event (known as a “soft opening”) and the second impacting the operation of a Limited Brewery. Due to the highly regulated nature of alcoholic beverages and the recent announcement of these rules, licensees should be diligent in their compliance. The Grand Opening Permit authorizes an on-premise consumption licensee to sponsor a one-time private event on the licensed premises at its initial opening. With this permit, the NJABC recognizes that a new licensee may want to introduce itself to certain members of the community through a private event before its opening to the general public. The licensee must maintain a list of all individuals invited and when the invitation was accepted (no same-day invitations or “walk-up” invitees), and the list must be provided to the NJABC within ten days after the event. The licensee can offer an open bar at the event for no more than three hours (unless the permit authorizes differently), and the entire licensed premises must be closed to the public with clear and conspicuous signage that the premises is closed for a private event. The new regulations for Limited Brewery Licensees (those breweries with...

Anti-Harassment Policies and Training: What New York Employers Need to Know Now

by Kelly Ann Bird and Elizabeth Cowit

Posted in Policies and Handbooks

On September 25, 2018

New York State As part of the 2018-2019 New York State Budget (“the Law”), employers within New York State are required to implement an anti-harassment policy by October 9, 2018 and implement an anti-harassment training program for employees and supervisors. In connection with these requirements, the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL), in consultation with the New York State Division of Human Rights, recently released drafts of its model anti-harassment policy, complaint form, interactive training program, and FAQs (“Anti-Harassment Materials”). Employers may adopt these Anti-Harassment Materials or develop their own policies and programs, provided they comply with or exceed the minimum standards set forth in the Law for the model policy and training program. The NYSDOL accepted comments on the Anti-Harassment Materials through September 12, 2018. Final documents are expected soon. The seven-page template policy is extensive and covers the topics required by the Law, such as: a statement that sexual harassment is a form of “employee misconduct” an explanation of sexual harassment specific examples of harassing conduct details concerning external avenues of complaints for employees (e.g., local, state, and federal anti-discrimination agencies and the local police in cases of assault) prohibitions against retaliation reporting procedures supervisory responsibilities detailed information about the investigation process (including document preservation requirements) a statement that action will be...