Green Savits Employment Law Blog

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...

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...

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...

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,...