In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd Frank Act which in part was designed to expand legal protection to whistleblowing employees of publicly traded companies who disclose, object to or refuse to participate in conduct that violates federal securities laws. On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to decide whether the Dodd Frank Act protects a whistleblowing employee who objects to federal securities laws violations to company management but not to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Thus, the Supreme Court will resolve conflicting rulings...Read More
Green Savits Employment Law Blog
Employment Attorneys Serving Northern and Central New Jersey
So far, it appears the the EEOC during the Trump Presidency will emphasize enforcing the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act which prohbits age discrimination against employees over 40 years old. See, Age Discrimination Next Up on EEOC’s Radar – Workforce Magazine. Hopefully, this is not just window dressing but real action. Studies by labor economists and the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco have found that older job candidates, and in particular women in their 50's, have a much tougher time even in obtaining job interviews than younger job candidates.
Our firm's experience when representing New Jersey individuals...Read More
The attorneys at Green Savits have handled many whistleblower cases on behalf of police officers, doctors, corporate senior management, sales employees and others. So when we observed the firing of FBI Director James Comey, we immediately recognized the classic elements of whistleblower cases being played out on the national stage. The Comey firing is instructive on how whistleblower cases are proven.
When President Donald Trump fired FBI Director Comey, various reasons were given to justify the decision. First, the Trump Administration’s press secretaries said the decision was based on now former Director’s Comey public...Read More
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
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
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