New Jersey Assembly Introduces A New Bill That Would Eliminate Certain Restrictive Covenants for Employees Eligible for Unemployment Benefits

Posted on April 30, 2013 by Thomas B. Lewis
no picture

A new bill (A-3970) introduced in the New Jersey Assembly on April 4, 2013 may prevent employers from using restrictive covenants to protect their business interests and confidential information for employees who would be eligible for unemployment benefits.  The law would only apply prospectively to covenants signed after enactment of the law for employees “eligible to receive [State unemployment] benefits.”  The scope of the proposed law makes it a risk to employers.  The key aspect of this legislation is that qualifying former employees “shall not be bound by any covenant, contract or agreement … not to compete, not to disclose, or not to solicit.”

Although the bill’s passage is unclear, New Jersey employers are advised to take proactive measures, including ensuring that its current workforce have executed restrictive covenants and confidentiality agreements.  It is still unknown how it would be reconciled with New Jersey’s new Trade Secrets Act and the use of “garden leave” provisions that restrict competition for employees for a period after notice of termination.

Employers contemplating restrictive covenants for the workforce, or contemplating revisions to existing covenants, should consider having the employees execute the covenants before the potential passage of this law.

Tags:

Compliance Update: May 7, 2013 Deadline for Use of New Form I-9

Posted on April 15, 2013 by Stark & Stark
no picture

 

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") has published a revised Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9, which employers may immediately start using. Beginning on May 7, 2013, employers must use the new form. Until then, the government has provided employers with a grace period during which they may continue to use the old form.  Failure to use the new form after May 7, 2013, however, may result in large fines for employers.

The information employers are required to provide under the new form is the same as required under the old Form I-9. USCIS has also released a new Handbook for Employers, known as the M-274, which provides employers with further guidance on completing the new Form I-9.

The new Form I-9 must be completed for all new hires, as well as for re-verifying current employees with expiring employment authorization documentation, beginning May 7, 2013. It is not, however, necessary to complete a new Form I-9 for existing employees who do not require re-verification. The new Form I-9, the M-274 Handbook, and additional guidance are currently available on the USCIS website at: www.uscis.gov.

 

Tags:

OSHA Interim Final Rule on New Whistleblower Protections Under Obamacare

Posted on March 28, 2013 by Stark & Stark
no picture
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), within the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), issued an interim final rule and has invited comments on the enforcement of the new whistleblower rule under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which Act is commonly known as Obamacare). The rule offers protection to employees from retaliation by their employers for reporting violations of the new tax credit or cost sharing reduction provisions and prohibits retaliation against employees who report violations of the Act’s ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions.  The interim final rule and information on submitting comments can be obtained from the DOL’s website or by clicking here.
Tags:

10 Ways Landlords Can Cut Costs and Increase Income Now

Posted on March 27, 2013 by Jerry A. Nelson
no picture

The bad news is that costs increased when taxes rose in January.  Interest rates may also rise.  The good news is that for savvy landlords, there are some proactive strategies to improve the bottom line now with the help of sound legal counsel.  Following are Stark & Stark’s top 10 tips for landlords to consider:

1.    Refinance.  With interest rates low, now is the time to act to refinance and cut costs before interest rates rise.  Have you reviewed your properties with counsel to ascertain what you need to refinance?  Are your estoppel certificates in order?  Any outstanding litigation cases that need to be resolved, in case your lender asks?  Stark & Stark’s Real Estate Group can manage these issues.  

2.   Reduce Taxes.  Have you considered filing a real estate tax appeal before the deadline?  April 1st is almost here.  Have you considered 1031 exchanges to provide tax benefits?  Stark & Stark’s Business & Corporate Group can help guide you through these tax issues.

3.   Plan.  Have you consulted with counsel lately to discuss and update your plans and options, including estate planning and business succession planning?  An experienced trusts and estates counsel can ensure that the maximum amount of your money stays where you want it, instead of going to Uncle Sam.  Stark & Stark’s Trusts & Estates Group can assist in planning for your future.

4.  Reduce Responsibilities.  Have you updated all your documents and procedures to reduce your responsibilities?  Have you minimized your repair and construction costs?  Have you reduced your utility and compliance costs?  Stark & Stark’s Real Estate and Construction Groups have the expertise you need.

5.   Improve Insurance.  When was the last time you reviewed and updated your insurance coverage?  Have you looked at your coverage in the wake of Hurricane Sandy?  Do you know what risks are not covered?  Are you relying on certificates of insurance that may not protect you?  Stark & Stark’s Insurance Group is here for you.

6.   Manage Risks.  Have you updated your compliance procedures, employee handbooks, and other documents and procedures to prevent problems?  Have you considered all available dispute resolution options?  Stark & Stark’s Employment Group can provide you with solutions to these issues.

7.   Improve Properties.  Have you recently developed or remodeled your real estate to attract and retain the best tenants and increase rents?  Stark & Stark’s Land Use Group can help you assess the legal issues with your property improvements.

8.  Increase Collections.  Are you collecting your unpaid debts while complying with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other applicable laws?  Will your strategies and procedures reduce future debt collection problems?  Are you enforcing all your bankruptcy and other rights?  Stark & Stark’s Bankruptcy & Creditor’s Rights Group is here for you.

9.   Improve Your Deals.Do your documents maximize recovery of operating expenses and unpaid rent?  Have you included all the language you need in different jurisdictions, such as "additional rent" language to capture all rent in New Jersey evictions and Confession of Judgment language to expedite rent recovery in Pennsylvania?  Stark & Stark is a regional firm with offices in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

10.   Get Deals Done Faster.  Do your negotiations take too long?  Are you expediting the negotiation and drafting of letters of intent, leases, amendments, contracts, and other documents? Stark & Stark’s Real Estate Group understands the immediacy of “now” and can help you with your needs.

These are just a few examples of how landlords can, with the help of good legal counsel, improve the bottom line now.  Evaluating these questions requires careful review on an individual basis with experienced counsel.  Having an attorney familiar with these issues is critical.  The attorneys at Stark & Stark understand the real estate community and can provide you the insight you need to address these and other questions for your real estate and business needs.

Feel free to contact Jerry Nelson at 609.945.7635 or jnelson@stark-stark.com for a review of your real estate and business issues.

Jerry A. Nelson, Esq. is a Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark's Business & Corporate and Real Estate, Zoning & Land Use Groups.  He writes regularly on issues for commercial landlords and brokers.  He is a member of the International Council of Shopping Centers and a regular speaker on commercial landlord issues.

Tags: , , , , ,

Update: FMLA

Posted on March 21, 2013 by Stark & Stark
no picture
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently updated several notices and forms relating to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The revised FMLA regulations require employers (generally applicable to employers with 50 or more employees) to post the new FMLA poster and to utilize the updated leave designation notice, employee eligibility notice and other updated forms. The revised forms are the product of recent changes to the FMLA regarding military family leave rights.  The following list of updated forms can be obtained from the DOL’s website or by clicking on the links below: 
 
Tags:

New Jersey Ordinance Impacts Employers' Use of Criminal History Records

Posted on December 5, 2012 by Brittney S. Blakeney
no picture

With the publication of the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan, many New Jersey municipalities may begin passing ordinances that protect job seekers with criminal backgrounds.  The EEOC’s Plan, which has already taken effect, highlights the elimination of systemic barriers in recruitment and hiring as one of its nationwide priorities.  Notably, New Jersey’s largest city, Newark, is leading the charge with its passage of an ordinance that restricts Newark employers’ ability to utilize criminal records for employment purposes.

BACKGROUND

Newark City Officials proposed this law after a study showed the following: 
  • an arrest, without any conviction, can serve as a barrier to employment;
  • many more Newark and Essex County residents who are or have been involved in the criminal justice system have been sentenced to probation and were never incarcerated;
  • criminal background checks by employers have increased dramatically in recent years, with estimates of 90% of large employers in the U.S. now conducting background checks as part of the hiring process; and
  • many individuals with criminal records represent a group of job seekers, ready to compete for employment and contribute to society.
TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE LEGAL
 
Newark employers with five or more employees will be limited in their ability to conduct criminal background checks on applicants prior to extending a conditional offer of employment.  After a conditional offer is extended, employers may make narrow criminal background inquiries, provided that there has been a “good faith determination” that criminal history is relevant based on the type of position, the employer has provided the candidate with advance written notice of the background check, and the candidate has agreed to the background check in writing.  Even if these requirements are met, the Newark ordinance limits an employer’s inquiry to certain criminal history, including:
 
  • indictable offense convictions for eight years following sentencing;
  • disorderly persons convictions or municipal ordinance violations for five years following sentencing;
  • pending criminal charges, including cases that have been continued without a finding until the case is dismissed; and
  • convictions for murder, voluntary manslaughter, and sex offenses requiring registry punishable by a term of incarceration in state prison, regardless of the length of time that has passed since disposition.
The ordinance also requires employers to consider certain factors when evaluating the results of a permissible criminal background check, including the nature of the crime and its relationship to the duties of the position sought, any information pertaining to rehabilitation, whether the prospective position provides an opportunity for the commission of a similar offense, and the amount of time that has elapsed since the offense.  If after conducting a criminal background check the employer decides not to hire the candidate, the ordinance requires the employer to provide the candidate with a form stating the reason for rejection and to give the candidate an opportunity to contest the decision.  
 
THE TAKE AWAY
 
It is clear from the language of the ordinance, that any decision not to hire an applicant with a criminal background must be narrowly tailored to the job in question.  Employers throughout the state, and especially in Newark, should review current hiring practices, particularly with respect to criminal background checks, and work with counsel to confirm these processes comply with the new ordinances that are certain to appear and to avoid EEOC involvement.
 
Brittney S. Blakeney is an Associate in Stark & Stark's Employment Group in its Lawrenceville, New Jersey office. For questions, or additional information, please contact Ms. Blakeney.
 
Tags: ,

Employer Alert: Time Off to Vote

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Stark & Stark
no picture
With Election Day approaching, employers should review their policies for compliance with state and local laws to determine whether or not they are required to provide their employees with time off to vote.
 
While many states, like New Jersey, do not have any such requirements, others, like New York, require employers to provide employees with time off to vote and impose civil and/or criminal penalties for non-compliance.
 
State laws vary as to whether such time must be paid, the amount of notice, if any, employees must provide their employers of their intention to vote and whether employers can designate the hours taken off to vote. Some states also require postings to advise employees of their voting leave rights.  Some states also require employers to provide their employees with time off to act as election officials.  
 
Employers should make themselves aware of any applicable requirements, to ensure they are prepared to appropriately address employee requests for time off to vote, to avoid violations of any applicable laws, and to minimize disruptions in the workplace.
Tags:

Third Circuit Establishes Test for Joint Employer Status Under the FLSA

Posted on August 15, 2012 by Stark & Stark
no picture
In In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13229 (3d Cir. June 28, 2012), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals established a new test for determining whether a joint employment relationship exists under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  The FLSA requires employers to provide overtime compensation to non-exempt employees who work more than 40 hours a week.  Under the FLSA, a single individual can be considered to be the employee of more than one employer.  In such “joint employment” situations, all of the employers are required to comply with the FLSA's overtime requirements.  
 
Background of the Enterprise Case:
 
A former assistant branch manager of Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Pittsburgh claimed that he was a joint employee of both Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Pittsburgh and Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Pittsburgh's parent company, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., and that both companies had violated the FLSA by failing to provide him with overtime compensation.  A collective action was brought on behalf of all current and former assistant branch managers at all Enterprise Rent-a-Car locations.
 
Test for Determining Whether a Joint Employment Relationship Exists Under the FLSA:
 
The Third Circuit held that where two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees, they are considered joint employers under the FLSA.  The Third Circuit adopted the following test for determining whether the necessary level of control exists to deem a party a “joint employer”:  
 
In determining whether joint employment exists, courts must first consider the alleged employer’s: 
  1. authority to hire and fire employees; 
  2. authority to promulgate work rules and assignments and set conditions of employment, including compensation, benefits and hours; 
  3. day-to-day supervision, including employee discipline; and 
  4. control of employee records, including payroll, insurance, taxes, and the like.
The Third Circuit emphasized that these four factors were not to be viewed as exhaustive and that they should not be “blindly applied.”  Rather, courts must also consider any other indications of “significant control” over the employee by the alleged employer which may be persuasive to a finding of joint employment when viewed with the above factors.
 
Outcome of the Enterprise Case:
 
Applying this newly articulated test to the facts of the Enterprise case, the Third Circuit concluded that Enterprise Holdings, Inc. was not a joint employer because it did not have: authority to hire or fire assistant managers; authority to promulgate work rules or assignments; authority to set compensation, benefits, schedules or rates or methods of payment; involvement in employee supervision or discipline; or control over employee records. 
 
The Take-Away:
 
Courts within the Third Circuit (New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware) will apply the Enterprise test going forward.  As this articulated test shows, the analysis to be conducted by such courts remains fairly flexible, highly fact sensitive and always case specific.  Moreover, courts are not limited to consideration of the four factors set forth within the test, but, rather, are required to look at other indicia of significant control.  Accordingly, employers with parent/subsidiary/affiliate relationships should be aware of the Enterprise decision and its potential effect on their entities,  and any employers that may be unsure of their joint employer status should consult with employment counsel to determine whether or not joint employer liability may exist and/or may be avoided.  Further, any parent entities that require its subsidiaries to adopt particular policies or practices should have such arrangements/requirements reviewed by legal counsel to avoid any unintended FLSA liability in light of this decision.
Tags:

U.S. Supreme Court: Pharmaceutical Sales Reps Are Exempt from Overtime Pay Under The FLSA

Posted on July 3, 2012 by Stark & Stark
no picture
On June 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that pharmaceutical sales representatives qualify as outside salesmen and, thus, are exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Christopher et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., dba GlaxoSmithKline, No. 11-204.  Although an important decision to the pharmaceutical industry and for pharmaceutical sales reps in its own right, this decision may also serve to provide insight as to the weight the current Court will give to agencies’ views of the laws and regulations they enforce.
 
Factual Background
Defendant, SmithKline Beecham Corporation (“SmithKline”) is a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and sells prescription drugs.  Pharmaceutical companies promote their drugs to physicians through a process called "detailing," by which their employees ("detailers" or "pharmaceutical sales representatives") provide information to physicians about the company's products in hopes of persuading them to write prescriptions. These representatives' primary duty is to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer's prescription drugs.
 
SmithKline did not pay their pharmaceutical sales reps time-and-one-half wages when they worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and several of the sales reps brought suit against the company arguing that it violated the FLSA by failing to compensate them for overtime hours worked. The trial judge ruled in favor of SmithKline. The sales reps filed a motion to alter or amend that judgment, contending that the trial judge had erred in failing to give controlling deference to the Department of Labor's interpretation of the applicable regulations. The trial judge denied that motion, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the Department of Labor's interpretation was not entitled to controlling deference.  The issue was ultimately brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Outside Sales Exemption
While the FLSA requires employers to compensate employees who work over 40 hours per week at a rate of one-and-one half times the employees’ regular wages, it exempts various classifications of workers from the requirement to pay overtime.  One such exemption is the “outside salesperson exemption.”  The FSLA defines an outside salesperson as an employee (1) whose primary duty is: (i) making sales within the meaning of Section 3(k) of the FLSA; or (ii) obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which consideration will be paid by the client or customer; and (2) who is customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business in performing such primary duty.  29 C.F.R. § 541.500(a).
 
No Deference Afforded to Department of Labor’s Interpretation of Outside Salesperson Exemption
The Department of Labor initially announced its view that pharmaceutical sales reps are not exempt outside salesmen in a 2009 amicus brief filed in the Second Circuit.  However, the agency later changed its views on what constitutes a "sale" for the purposes of the outside sales exemption, and subsequently determined that "[a]n employee does not make a 'sale' for purposes of the 'outside salesman' exemption unless he actually transfers title to the property at issue." Given the new interpretation, the plaintiffs argued that because it is illegal for pharmaceutical sales reps and physicians to exchange money for pharmaceutical products, the pharmaceutical sales reps do not actually make sales.  They further argued that obtaining a non-binding commitment to prescribe drugs does not constitute a sale, and both the reps and the Department of Labor argued that the new interpretation was entitled to deference.
 
The Court found the new interpretation to be "flatly inconsistent with the FLSA," which defines the term "sale" to mean a "consignment for sale" that does not involve the transfer of title, and the Court concluded that the Department of Labor's interpretation was neither entitled to deference "nor persuasive in its own right."
 
The Court noted that the definition of outside salesperson in the Department of Labor's regulation includes a "broad catchall phrase: 'other disposition,'” which is "most reasonably interpreted as including those arrangements that are tantamount, in a particular industry, to a paradigmatic sale of a commodity." Obtaining a nonbinding commitment from a physician to prescribe a drug, which was "the most that petitioners were able to do to ensure the eventual disposition" of the Company’s products "comfortably falls within the catch-all category of 'other disposition'." Based on this interpretation, the Court ruled that the pharmaceutical sales reps make “sales” for purposes of the FLSA, and, therefore they are exempt outside salespersons within the meaning of the Department of Labor's regulations.
 
Accordingly, the Court determined that, since pharmaceutical sales reps “bear all of the external indicia of salesmen,” exempt classification is consistent with the purpose of the FLSA’s exemption for outside salesmen.
Tags:

Paid and Unpaid Interns Must Be Treated in Accordance With Wage & Hour Laws

Posted on March 19, 2012 by Stark & Stark
no picture

Given the tough job market and with summer approaching, many employers can expect college students, recent graduates and currently unemployed workers to seek out internships with their organizations.

Many employers do not realize that they, generally, must pay at least the minimum wage and overtime to their interns under federal and state regulations. In fact, some employers would be shocked to learn that their use of interns (aka trainees, assistants, or learners) for whom they provide little or no pay for the work performed may violate wage and hour laws. Employers who wish to employ unpaid interns must do so carefully to avoid exposure to legal and financial liability.

Background
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines the term “employ” very broadly as “to suffer or permit to work.” Covered and non-exempt employees who are “suffered or permitted to work” must be compensated under law for the services they perform.  Internships in the “for-profit” private sector will most often be viewed as employment, unless certain criteria relating to training are met.  Accordingly, interns in the “for-profit” private sector who qualify as employees, rather than trainees, typically must be paid at least the minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours worked over forty in a workweek. (See U.S. Dept of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act)

The Test for Unpaid Interns
There are some circumstances under which individuals who participate in “for-profit” private sector internships or training programs may do so without compensation.  The determination of whether an internship or training program meets this permitted exclusion to the general rule depends on all of the facts and circumstances of each such program.

The following six criteria must be applied in making this determination:

  1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training that would be given in an educational environment;
  2. The internship is for the benefit of the intern;
  3. The intern does not displace a regular employee, but works under close observation of existing staff;
  4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern and, on occasion, the employer’s operations may actually be impeded;
  5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the completion of the internship; and
  6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

The Take-Away
Whether or not interns at a company are “employees” under the FLSA will depend upon all the circumstances surrounding their activities.  To the extent that an organization wishes to utilize unpaid interns, programs, policies and procedures should be developed which satisfy the above factors and which are tailored to the particular organization.

Tags:

Older Entries

January 27, 2012 — Lady Gaga's Personal Assistant Sues for Overtime Compensation and Provides an Opportunity to Remind Those Who Employ Personal or Executive Assistants of Their Obligations Under Wage and Hour Laws

January 18, 2012 — US Supreme Court Recognizes Religious Exception to Employment Discrimination Law

January 17, 2012 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Wall Street Bonus Check Reduction

January 12, 2012 — New Jersey Trade Secrets Act

January 3, 2012 — Regional Firms Trump Big Brokers in Adviser Hiring

December 7, 2011 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on FINRA's Actions Against Former Citigroup Managers

November 21, 2011 — New Posting Requirement for New Jersey Employers: December 7, 2011 Deadline; Mandate Effective Immediately for New Hires

November 7, 2011 — Employer Social Media Policies: A Balancing Act

September 15, 2011 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on AllianceBernstein's Decision Not to Sign Protocol for Broker Recruiting

August 16, 2011 — Lehman Pursues Former Brokers' Bonuses

May 12, 2011 — ERISA: Exhausting Remedies

April 28, 2011 — Withdrawal Liability & Enforcement of Contribution Obligations Under ERISA

April 19, 2011 — Garden Leave Provisions: A groing trend in employment agreements

April 18, 2011 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Wells Fargo Decision

April 11, 2011 — ERISA's Anti-Cutback Rule

March 31, 2011 — ERISA Funding Requirements

March 18, 2011 — Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA

March 9, 2011 — Employers Increasingly Faced with Need to Navigate the Perils of Social Media and Networking

March 4, 2011 — The Employee Retirement Income Security Act

February 28, 2011 — Pension Protection Act of 2006

February 22, 2011 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on 'Garden Leave' for Brokers

January 10, 2011 — Employers in New Jersey May Refuse to Hire an Employee Based on a Prior Bankruptcy

January 3, 2011 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on FINRA's Decision in UBS Arbitration Case

December 22, 2010 — New Supreme Court Case Requires Hearing to Determine if Evidence of Discrimination was Hidden From Plaintiff Regarding Claims That Are Otherwise Barred By The Two Year Statute of Limitations

December 21, 2010 — FINRA To Ease Arbitrator Standards In Bonus Cases

November 18, 2010 — The Class Action Decision in Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Reconfirmed by New Jersey Supreme Court in Lee v. Carter-Reed Co.

November 10, 2010 — A SAFE HARBOR FOR EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS: Employment Policies Offer Protection

September 20, 2010 — How to Switch Firms... and Not Get Sued

August 17, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on J.P. Morgan Suit Against Former Adviser

July 13, 2010 — J.P. Morgan Sues Former Adviser

June 18, 2010 — Police Lay-offs In New Jersey Contemplated

June 11, 2010 — Card Check Legislation Languishes

May 27, 2010 — Governor's New Policies Spell Trouble For Public Union Members

May 27, 2010 — Now That You Have Created a New RIA, Do Not Forget That You Are an Employer Too

May 6, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Smith Barney Raiding Case

May 3, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Reuters.com Article

April 28, 2010 — Advisers switching firms need a plan

April 20, 2010 — Enforceable Non-Compete Agreements: How Employers Can Adequately Define and Protect Their Legitimate Business Interests

April 14, 2010 — Employer's Ability to Review Employee E-Mail Communications May Be Limited

March 26, 2010 — Non-Compete Agreements: How Employers can Define and Protect Their Legitimate Business Interests

March 22, 2010 — Deferred Compensation Agreements Should Be Reviewed, Again

March 1, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Protocol Overhaul

February 25, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Increase in Suits in Response to Protocol for Broker Recruiting

February 23, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Goldman Sachs Suit

February 4, 2010 — Stark & Stark Employment Group Chair Comments on Protocol for Broker Recruiting

January 15, 2010 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Citigroup's Motion To Dismiss In Bonus Pay Class Action

November 30, 2009 — Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act

November 18, 2009 — RIAs drive explosive growth of the Broker Protocol

November 4, 2009 — It's Payback Time on Promissory Notes

October 20, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on FINRA Expulsion

September 22, 2009 — Be Clear With Your Company Email Policy

August 26, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Sarkozy's Threat to Shun US Bankers

August 13, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Berrien's Nomination as Head of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

July 15, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder to Present at NJICLE Non-Compete Seminar

July 6, 2009 — Recent Case Law Under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act

June 29, 2009 — The Impacts of Family Leave Insurance

June 11, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling Concerning to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

May 22, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Enforcement of Brokers Bonus Repayment

April 9, 2009 — A Safe Harbor for Employment Claims

April 7, 2009 — Employees Beware: Email Exchanges on Company Property May Waive Attorney-Client Privilege

April 6, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Breach of Protocol for Broker Recruiting

March 26, 2009 — What You Need To Know About The New Jersey Paid Family Leave Law

March 16, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Quoted in Smith Barney InvestmentNews.com Article

March 9, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Breach of Protocol for Broker Recruiting by Smith Barney Employees

February 5, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Bank of America CEO

February 2, 2009 — Employer/Employee Relationships: Non-Compete, Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation Clauses

January 23, 2009 — Employer Alert: Use of New I-9 Form Required by February 2, 2009

January 22, 2009 — Paid Family Leave Provides No Additional Job Security

January 13, 2009 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Reaction From Bank of America & Merrill Lynch Merger

December 10, 2008 — The Eroding 'At-Will' Employment Doctrine

December 4, 2008 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Advances in Broker Recruitment Protocol

November 26, 2008 — New Jersey Employers Brace Yourself: "Card Check" Is Coming

November 18, 2008 — Remember the WARN Act

November 6, 2008 — Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Bank of America Incentives

November 6, 2008 — It Ain't Over, Even After It's Over: New Jersey Court Extends Retaliation Claims Under Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) For Post-Termination Actions

November 3, 2008 — Changes in Deferred Compensation Law Requires Compliance By January 1, 2009

October 29, 2008 — Protocol for Broker Recruiting

September 26, 2008 — New Expansion of Discrimination/Sexual Harassment Law

August 19, 2008 — Equal Protection: A State Employee Is Not a "Class-of-One"

July 7, 2008 — Trans-Gender Issues For Employers Under The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

June 20, 2008 — Regulatory Hammer Strikes Again

May 21, 2008 — President Signs Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act into Law

March 31, 2008 — Job References: Problems for Good References, Problems for Bad References

March 20, 2008 — Court Limits Damages in Restrictive Covenant Cases

March 1, 2008 — Non-Disclosure and Restrictive Covenant Agreements

February 5, 2008 — Counsel Fees & Costs May Be Awarded In A New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Case

January 29, 2008 — Halting Employee Theft

January 16, 2008 — Damages For An Alleged Violation of A Non-Solicit Agreement

January 9, 2008 — New Bill Will Add Additional Burden To Employers

January 2, 2008 — Congress Adds FMLA Rights

December 26, 2007 — Employees Giving Notice of FMLA Requests

December 18, 2007 — At Will Employment Alive and Well in the Franchise Context

December 7, 2007 — At-Will Employment: New Changes and Challenges for Employers

November 16, 2007 — Executive Recruiters Should Be Wary of Restrictive Covenants

September 19, 2007 — Employer Not Liable For Refusing To Grant Employee's Unreasonable Accommodation Request

August 13, 2007 — Litigation Gets Personal

July 4, 2007 — What Not To Say - Reference Checks

July 2, 2007 — New Requirements for New Jersey Employee Handbooks

June 29, 2007 — New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 69

June 27, 2007 — New Transsexual Rights Law Leaves Lawyers Guessing About Its Terms