The May 14, 2017 New York Times Sunday Business Section ran an in-depth feature article exploring how employers are requiring employees more and more to sign non-compete agreements. As the article points out, employers use to reserve the use of non-compete agreements for senior management. That has changed recently and has spread to the lowest rung employees. Because court battles over the validity of non-compete agreement require a lot of attorney time, attorneys who represent employees must charge on the hour and most employees cannot afford to pay those fees. One or two of the employees interviewed in the Times article went bankrupt...Read More
Green Savits Employment Law Blog
Employment Attorneys Serving Northern and Central New Jersey
As Baby Boomers age, their employment becomes more precarious. What makes this even tougher for Boomers are their finances after paying exorbitant college tuition bills for their children (for those that can even afford it) and and less than optimal savings. Accordingly, Boomers must work longer to have a decent semblance of retirement.
A significant age discrimination verdict against defense contractor Lockheed Martin in New Jersey federal court this past January illustrates what companies will do in order to justify terminating older employees. Here is a description of what happened to the older Lockheed employee and why...Read More
The Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco conducted a study in 2015 how age discrimination affects men and women. Researchers sent out approximately 40,000 applications to employers for 13,000 positions in eleven cities across twelve different states. The study concluded that older women applying for jobs were 47% more likely to be initially rejected for administrative positions than their younger counterparts.
This study has important implications for proving lost wages and benefits suffered by older women who were illegaly terminated. Employers often argue that it is too speculative to predict wage and benefit losses into the...Read More
We frequently receive calls from recently terminated employees who want to know if they are entitled to severance pay from their employer upon termination. They are understandably never happy to hear that the answer to that question is no. Generally, employers are not required to pay employees severance at termination with the following exceptions:If a contract between employee and employer provides for severance upon separation; or If an employer has a specific, written policy to provide severance to employees upon separation, the employer must apply that policy.
If you believe your employer is violating your employment contract...Read More
Before choosing to proceed with litigation for employment discrimination, our clients often ask us whether the litigation will impact their receipt of unemployment benefits. While the answer to that question is clearly no, whether defendants could later seek an offset of unemployment benefits received against damages recovered by prevailing plaintiffs in employment discrimination litigation has remained somewhat unclear. Until yesterday.
In it's March 6, 2017 written opinion, New Jersey's Appellate Division confirmed in Acevedo v. Flightsafety Int'l, Inc. that damages awarded to a plaintiff in employment discrimination cases under...Read More
Employees often call us about whether their employer is required to give them time off to care for a sick family member or newborn baby. Unfortunately, only certain employers are required to provide such time off.
If your employer has 50 or more employees within 75 miles of your worksite and if you have worked for that employer for at least 12 months and for at least 1250 hours in the past 12 months, you are entitled to up to 12 weeks per year of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to care for yourself, your spouse, your child, or your parent with a serious health condition. You can also use FMLA leave for...Read More
In the first of Green Savits' answers to Frequently Asked Questions, we address whether employers can force employees to work overtime.
Employees who contact us often complain that their employer is forcing them to work long hours and ask whether mandatory overtime is legal. The answer is, generally, yes. In New Jersey, employees are considered “at-will,” which means that your employer can require you to work more than 40 hours per week or 8 hours per day and terminate you if you refuse to do so unless:You have an employment contract specifying otherwise (such as a collective bargaining agreement); or Your disability prevents... Read More
An interesting NY Times article in the Business Section on December 18, 2016 reported that a study of Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) and Dodd Frank whistle-blowers found that exposing coporate wrong-doing actually changed corporate conduct for the better.
In fact, the burden of proof for whistle-blowers who claim retaliation under SOX are very pro-whistleblower. All a whistle-blower has to prove under SOX is that he/she is an employee who reasaonbly believed that the employer was violating federal securities laws and that the employer retaliated against the whistleblower for either objecting to or reporting the wrongdoing to a supervisor,...Read More
The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or the “Act”) governs the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements for employees in almost all workplaces across the country. However, unsurprisingly, employers’ obligations under the FLSA are more complicated than simply paying their employees the set minimum wage (currently, $7.25/hour) and 1.5 times their regularly hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. The many exemptions contained within the Act limit the number of employees who are entitled to these minimum wage and overtime guarantees.
For example, under the FLSA, employees “employed in a bona fide executive,...Read More
Both the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the NASDAQ have actually made it easier for employees of publicly traded companies listed on their exchanges to successfully bring whistleblower retaliation claims. The exchanges did so by passing rules requiring listed companies to develop procedures for whistle-blowing employees to report illegal corporate wrongdoing. Of course, both the NYSE and NASDAQ did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts but were directed to take action by the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 406 of the 2002 Sarbanes Oxley Act. See 17 CFR 228.406(b)(3) and 229.406 (b)(3). That provision...Read More