<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Employment - New Jersey Law Blog</title>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/articles/employment/</link>
<description></description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:05:33 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:14:23 -0500</pubDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>The Impacts of Family Leave Insurance</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>With the advent of the newest employee benefit in New Jersey, business owners ask what impact Family Leave Insurance will have on the employer&rsquo;s discretion to terminate employment due to business conditions or other considerations. The Legislature has made it clear that the amendments to the Temporary Disability Benefits law, commonly known as the &ldquo;Paid Family Leave Act&rdquo;, confer a monetary benefit, but not a leave entitlement. In other words, this law does not further erode the &ldquo;At-Will&rdquo; concept of employment, that the employer is free to change the working conditions or terminate the employment of a worker with or without notice and with or without good cause for the termination. <br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Of course, appropriate law limits this discretion where there is a written contract specifying a certain duration of employment or if the employer&rsquo;s action violates applicable laws (These laws include Family Leave Acts, Discrimination Laws, implied promises contained in written or oral policies, and New Jersey&rsquo;s Conscientious Employees Protection Act.) In the context of Family Leave laws, those employers who are covered under the Federal or New Jersey State Acts (Under Federal law, covered employers are those who employ 50 or more employees for each working day during 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, either at the main work site or without 75 miles of that work site. The New Jersey law applies to employers with 50 or more employees.) Must still comply with the laws and regulations promulgated under these Acts. However, these amendments do not confer additional leave rights to employees.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Must the employer pay the employee&rsquo;s wages for this paid leave period? Family Leave Insurance benefits are fully funded by employee contributions through payroll deductions, which began on January 1, 2009.&nbsp; The employer will not be required to contribute to this plan. In addition, an employer can require an employee to use up to two weeks of any paid sick leave, vacation time or other leave as full pay, if made available by the employer, prior to utilizing Family Leave Insurance benefits.<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
For what reasons may an employee claim these benefits? Benefits shall be granted for an employee to bond with a child during the first twelve months after the child&rsquo;s birth, if the covered individual or the domestic partner or civil union partner of the covered individual, is a biological parent of the child, or for the first twelve months after the placement of the child for adoption with the covered individual. In addition, benefits can be claimed to care for a &ldquo;family member&rdquo; with a serious health condition as defined in the law. Benefits are NOT available due to the serious health condition of the covered employee.<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
&ldquo;Serious Health Condition&rdquo; means an &ldquo;illness, injury, impairment or physical or mental condition&rdquo;, which includes any of the following: <br />
<br />
1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In-patient care or continuing treatment by a health-care provider, including any period of incapacity or subsequent treatment in connection with in-patient care. (a) &ldquo;Period of incapacity&rdquo; means inability to work, attend school or perform other regular daily activities due the serious health condition, treatment therefore, or recovery there from. OR&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />
&nbsp;<br />
<br />
2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Continuing treatment by a health-care provider, which involves one or more of the following: (a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A period of incapacity (inability to attend work, school, etc.) for more than three consecutive calendar days, that also involves.<br />
(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Treatment two or more times by a health-care provider.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />
OR<br />
(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Treatment by a health-care provider on at least one occasion, which results in a regime of continued treatment. Treatment includes prescription drugs, such as antibiotics. Regimes, such as resting, drinking fluids, taking aspirin, which can be initiated without visiting a health-care provider, are not sufficient.<br />
<br />
3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any incapacity due to pregnancy or pre-natal care.<br />
<br />
4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conditions not currently incapacitating but which require multiple treatments.<br />
<br />
5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any period of incapacity or treatment for such incapacity due to chronic serious health condition.<br />
<br />
6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A period of incapacity, which is permanent or long-term due to a condition for which treatment may not be effective.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
<br />
The above-listed inclusions are broadly stated and there are refinements and exclusions, which should be evaluated in any given situation.</p>
<p><br />
<br />
&nbsp;Who is eligible for Family Leave Insurance benefits? An employee can collect benefits if he or she is currently employed in &ldquo;covered employment&rdquo; or out of &ldquo;covered employment&rdquo; for less than two weeks. Employment, including employment with governmental entities, covered under the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law is covered with respect to Family Leave Insurance.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
<br />
Notwithstanding the above, an employee is not qualified for any period that:</p>
<ol>
    <li>The employee receives temporary disability benefits from any source;</li>
    <li>The employee receives unemployment insurance benefits;</li>
    <li>The employee receives full salary or paid time off;</li>
    <li>The employee is working;</li>
    <li>The employee is under family leave, which did not start while the claimant was a covered individual or within fourteen days of the claimant&rsquo;s last date of work;</li>
    <li>The employee was on family leave for the care of a family member and the care recipient was not under the care or supervision of the health-care provider;</li>
    <li>The employee is out of work due to a stoppage of work, which exists because of labor dispute at the claimant&rsquo;s place of employment; or</li>
    <li>The employee has been discharged by the most recent employer for gross misconduct under applicable unemployment compensation law.&nbsp;</li>
</ol>
<p><br />
How much is the benefit and for how long does it last? An employee can receive a maximum of six weeks of Family Leave Insurance benefits in a twelve-month period, which is denoted as the three hundred sixty-five consecutive days that begins with the first day that the employee establishes a valid first claim for Family Leave Insurance benefits. An employee may re-establish a claim within the same period for a different care recipient, or a claim during or following employment with a different employer. However, the employee cannot receive more than six weeks of benefits during the twelve-month period.&nbsp; In the event of care for a family member with a serious health condition, claims may alternatively be filed for intermittent weeks or for forty-two intermittent days during the twelve-month period.&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
The weekly benefit rate is based on the employee&rsquo;s average weekly wage in the eight calendar weeks immediately before the week in which the benefit commences. The rate is two-thirds of this wage, up to a maximum of Five Hundred Forty-Six ($546.00) Dollars.&nbsp; <br />
&nbsp;<br />
<br />
What steps must an employee take to apply for these benefits? If an employee intends to take the benefits to participate in providing care for a family member with a serious health condition, he or she must give the employer reasonable and practicable notice, unless the time of the leave is unexpected or the time of the leave changes for unforeseeable reasons. The request must be supported by a medical certification. In addition, a reasonable effort must be made to schedule the leave so as not to unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.&nbsp; If possible, the employee will be required to provide a schedule of the required leave days. In the case of an employee who intends to claim insurance benefits to bond with a newborn or newly adopted child, thirty days prior notice must be given, except if the leave is unforeseeable. Failure to do so will result in a loss of two days leave.&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
This analysis is intended to highlight the most salient provisions of the Family Leave Insurance benefits law, and has been derived from the Family Leave Insurance Fact Sheet published by the Department of Labor as well as other sources. Details and interpretations of the law will be published in the New Jersey Administrative Code. If there are any questions relative to the application of this new benefits law, an employer should consult counsel so as to ensure proper compliance.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/06/articles/employment/the-impacts-of-family-leave-insurance/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/06/articles/employment/the-impacts-of-family-leave-insurance/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:05:33 -0500</pubDate>
<author>gfaber@stark-stark.com (Gerald Faber)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Stark &amp; Stark Shareholder Comments on New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling Concerning to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Chair of Stark &amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> group, was quoted in the June 5, 2009 article on <u>Law360.com</u> entitled, <em>Securities Sales Not Subject To Fraud Act: NJ Court</em>. The article discuss the recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling which states that a broker accused of failing to properly transfer funds for the purchase of securities and the firm that employed the broker can't be held liable under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Mr. Lewis states that applying to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to cases such as this could be harmful to banks and brokerage houses, as the ramifications of applying the statute to such sales could be mind-boggling because of the treble damages and court costs provisions. You can read the full article online</p>
<a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL Law360 6_5_09.pdf">here</a>
<p>. (PDF)</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/06/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-new-jersey-supreme-court-ruling-concerning-to-the-new-jersey-consumer-fraud-act/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/06/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-new-jersey-supreme-court-ruling-concerning-to-the-new-jersey-consumer-fraud-act/</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Litigation</category><category>Media Placements</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:04:38 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Stark &amp; Stark Shareholder Comments on Enforcement of Brokers Bonus Repayment</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Shareholder and Chair of Stark &amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> Litigation group, was quoted in the May 7, 2009 <u>Dow Jones</u> article, <em>BROKER'S WORLD: Brokers Fight Bonus Repayment - And Lose</em>. The article discusses the recent rise in companies enforcing the repayment of signing and retention bonuses. Mr. Lewis states that, &quot;Enforcement proceedings...are becoming even more common as brokers move to different companies and cash-strapped brokerages try to grab whatever money they can.&quot;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You can read the full article online <a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL Dow Jones 5_7_09.pdf">here</a>. (PDF)</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/05/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-enforcement-of-brokers-bonus-repayment/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/05/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-enforcement-of-brokers-bonus-repayment/</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Litigation</category><category>Media Placements</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 08:01:55 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>A Safe Harbor for Employment Claims</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Chair of Stark &amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> Group, and <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1217497.html">Michael J. Brittan</a>, member of Stark&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> group, authored an article for the Monday March 30, 2009 edition of the <u>New Jersey Law Journal</u> entitled <em>A Safe Harbor for Employment Claims: Ensure minimal liability from discrimination claims</em>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The article discusses what employers should do in a discrimination case if, after investigating and taking action against the discriminating employee, the offended employee continues to pursue legal action. You can read the full article online <a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL MJB NJLJ 3_30_09.pdf">here</a>. </p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/04/articles/employment/a-safe-harbor-for-employment-claims/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/04/articles/employment/a-safe-harbor-for-employment-claims/</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Media Placements</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:03:33 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Employees Beware:  Email Exchanges on Company Property May Waive Attorney-Client Privilege</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In a ruling this pas February in <u>Stengart v. Loving Care Agency</u> (BER-L-858-08), a New Jersey Superior Court Judge found that an employee&rsquo;s e-mail correspondence with her counsel, made on the company&rsquo;s laptop was not protected under the attorney-client privilege, despite the fact that she has used a password-protected, web-based email account and not her company email.&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Court&rsquo;s throughout the country have consistently found that when an employee utilizes an email account issued by the employer, over the employer&rsquo;s servers, such correspondence is not generally protected by the attorney-client privilege if the employer gave sufficient notice that emails are subject to review.&nbsp; The <u>Stengart </u>case, however, is one of first impression and seemingly takes the policy rationale of these noted decisions one step further, finding that even when an employee is prudent enough to use a &ldquo;private&rdquo; email account, such communications may be deemed company property and should not be considered &ldquo;private&rdquo; nor &ldquo;protected&rdquo;.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Its important to note, however, that the Court&rsquo;s findings took into large account the fact that the employee handbook specifically provided that &ldquo;Email, voice messages, internet use and computer files are considered part of the company&rsquo;s business and client records&rdquo; and that &ldquo;such communications are not to be considered private or personal to any individual employee.&rdquo; The handbook further prohibited the use of email for &ldquo;other employment activities outside the scope of the company&rsquo;s business.&rdquo;</p>
<p><br />
<br />
The Plaintiff attempted to argue that she was unaware of the company&rsquo;s policy governing email when she communicated with her attorney regarding her intent to resign, trusting that such communication was private and privileged.&nbsp; The Court dismissed Plaintiff&rsquo;s insufficient notice argument and was persuaded rather by the fact that the employee handbook was distributed to each employee, an electronic version is accessible on the Company&rsquo;s server and the Plaintiff herself assisted in creating the handbook.&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Therefore, while certainly this is a significant case establishing a basis for recovering material that may otherwise be protected by the attorney-client privilege, employers must be cautious and mindful that much of the ruling was based on a <em>particular factual</em> scenario.&nbsp; In <u>Stengart</u>, the employer carefully drafted and distributed an email communication policy that warned employees against any privacy expectations.&nbsp; However, had the employee handbook not been as clear with its policy regarding email or had sufficient notice of the policy not been established, the Court may have ruled differently.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/04/articles/employment/employees-beware-email-exchanges-on-company-property-may-waive-attorneyclient-privilege/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/04/articles/employment/employees-beware-email-exchanges-on-company-property-may-waive-attorneyclient-privilege/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:14:47 -0500</pubDate>
<author>mchristensen@stark-stark.com (Megan M. Christensen)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Stark &amp; Stark Shareholder Comments on Breach of Protocol for Broker Recruiting</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Shareholder and member of Stark&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> group, was quoted in the April 1, 2009 <u>OnWallStreet.com</u> article <em>The Last Weapon</em>. The article discusses the increased rise in advisors being accused of taking classified client information as a breach of the Protocol for Broker Recruiting when leaving a current firm. Mr. Lewis offers several Do's and Don'ts for advisors as they consider a move. You can read the full article <a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL On WallStreet 4_1_09.pdf">here</a>. (PDF)</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/04/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-breach-of-protocol-for-broker-recruiting/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/04/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-breach-of-protocol-for-broker-recruiting/</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Media Placements</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:27:14 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>What You Need To Know About The New Jersey Paid Family Leave Law</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>As most New Jersey employers and employees alike are aware, since January 1, 2009, payroll deductions have been taken to fund New Jersey&rsquo;s Paid Family Leave benefit.&nbsp; Paid leave benefits themselves, however, only become available as of July 1, 2009.&nbsp; With this commencement date approaching, it is important for employees to understand whether or not they may be eligible for Paid Family Leave benefits, the value of the benefits, and what they need to do to obtain them.&nbsp; It is also important for employers to understand their rights and obligations under this relatively new law to ensure compliance with the same.</p>
<p><br />
<strong>What is New Jersey Paid Family Leave?</strong><br />
New Jersey Paid Family Leave is funded 100% by employees through payroll deductions and benefits are administered through the State&rsquo;s existing Temporary Disability Benefits Program.&nbsp; It is not really a &ldquo;leave&rdquo; program, rather it is a wage replacement law &ndash; similar to temporary disability benefits laws.&nbsp; In fact, although commonly referred to as the Paid Family Leave law, it is officially called the Family Temporary Disability Leave law.</p>
<p><br />
It is a true &ldquo;family leave&rdquo; program, however, in that paid leave benefits are only available to employees to help care for a qualifying family member &ndash; benefits are not available if out of work due to one&rsquo;s own illness or to otherwise care for one&rsquo;s self.</p>
<p><br />
Paid Family Leave runs concurrently with unpaid Family and Medical Leave Act &ldquo;FMLA&rdquo; and/or New Jersey Family Leave Act (&ldquo;NJFLA&rdquo;) leaves and does not reduce or impact leave rights under either FMLA or NJFLA.&nbsp; In addition, Paid Family Leave benefits are also available to employees of smaller employers &ndash; who may not be entitled to FMLA or NJFLA leaves.&nbsp; Paid Family Leave, however, is not a protected leave and does not provide any independent right to reinstatement or other job protection.<br />
<br />
<strong>How much does it pay and for how long do benefits last?</strong><br />
Employees are entitled to 2/3 of their average weekly wage, up to a $524 per week maximum.&nbsp; Eligible employees may take up to 6 weeks of Paid Family Leave.<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Are you eligible?</strong><br />
All employees who have worked 20 calendar weeks in covered New Jersey employment or who have earned at least $7,150.00 (1000 times NJ minimum wage [currently $7.15/hr]) during the 12 months preceding any leave are eligible to receive Paid Leave benefits.</p>
<p><br />
<strong>For what reasons can you take Paid Family Leave?</strong><br />
Employees can take paid leave to care for a newborn, within 12 months of birth; to care for a newly adopted child, within 12 months of placement; or to care for a family member with a serious health condition.&nbsp; The definitions of qualifying &ldquo;family members&rdquo; and &ldquo;serious health conditions&rdquo; are similar to those employed by the FMLA and NJFLA.&nbsp; Leave can be taken concurrently or intermittently.&nbsp; </p>
<p><br />
<strong>What do you have to do to obtain benefits?</strong><br />
Application for benefits will be made to the State.&nbsp; If taking Paid Family Leave to care for a sick family member, you will be required to obtain and submit medical certifications and, in some instances, the State may require that family member to obtain a neutral medical certification.&nbsp; There will generally be a 1-week waiting period before you can receive Paid Family Leave benefits.&nbsp; If benefits continue for 3 weeks, benefits are payable retroactive to the first day of the leave.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>Obligations of both Employers and Employees</strong><br />
Employers must comply with various notice and posting requirements and should also consider adopting and implementing policies that govern whether or not employees will be required and/or permitted to use sick, vacation or other fully paid time off accrued under company policy before using Paid Family Leave.&nbsp; Employers must submit specific information to the State, including wage information and information about company paid leave benefits within 9 days of the start of the leave.&nbsp; </p>
<p><br />
Employees need to be aware of various notice requirements that must be given to employers of the intent to take Paid Family Leave and deadlines by which to apply for benefits with the State, typically within 30 days after the leave begins.</p>
<p><br />
Both employees and employers alike should check for specific eligibility requirements and obligations with the New Jersey Department of Labor or their legal counsel to ensure both compliance with the new law and enforcement of their rights pursuant to the New Jersey Paid Leave law.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/03/articles/employment/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-jersey-paid-family-leave-law/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/03/articles/employment/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-jersey-paid-family-leave-law/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:08:28 -0500</pubDate>
<author>adambeck@stark-stark.com (Amy Beth Dambeck)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Stark &amp; Stark Shareholder Quoted in Smith Barney InvestmentNews.com Article</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Shareholder and Chair of Stark &amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> group, was quoted in the Monday March 2, 2009 <u>InvestmentNews.com</u> article <em>Judge clears two ex-Smith Barney brokers</em>. Last Thursday two ex-Smith Barney brokers, William Meyer and Marcy LePrell, were cleared of allegations that they took private client information to their new firm. Mr.&nbsp;Lewis, who represents Mr. Meyer and Ms. LePrell, stated that the entire case was nothing more than an attempt by Smith Barney to keep its reps under control after a a rising number of brokers left the firm in February of this year.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You can read the full article <a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL 3_2_09 Investment News.pdf">here</a>. (PDF)</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/03/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-quoted-in-smith-barney-investmentnewscom-article/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/03/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-quoted-in-smith-barney-investmentnewscom-article/</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Media Placements</category><category>Securities Compliance &amp; Arbitration</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:09:34 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Stark &amp; Stark Shareholder Comments on Breach of Protocol for Broker Recruiting by Smith Barney Employees</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Chair of Stark &amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> group, was quoted in the March 5, 2009 <u>LancasterOnline.com</u> article <em>Brokers battle over client info</em>. Mr. Lewis comments on the pair of Lancaster brokerage firms alleging that two former Smith Barney employees, William Meyer and Marcy LePrell, took confidential customer information with them when they joined Janney Montgomery Scott on Feb. 18, 2009. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You can read the full article online <a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL - LancasterOnline_com 3_17_09.pdf">here</a>. </p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/03/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-breach-of-protocol-for-broker-recruiting-by-smith-barney-employees/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/03/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-breach-of-protocol-for-broker-recruiting-by-smith-barney-employees/</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Litigation</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:42:36 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Stark &amp; Stark Shareholder Comments on Bank of America CEO</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Shareholder and Chair of Stark &amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> group, was quoted in the January 13, 2009 <u>Daily Report</u> article, <em>CEO&nbsp;may be rethinking BofA's 'crown jewel'</em>. Mr. Lewis comments on Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Ken Lewis' reputation for not appreciating the nuances of the client-broker relationship, and the other pitfalls Lewis has made over the past several weeks. You can read the full article here (<a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL 1_13_09 Bloomberg.pdf">PDF</a>).&nbsp;</p>
<br />]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/02/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-bank-of-america-ceo/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/02/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-bank-of-america-ceo/</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Media Placements</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:05:09 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Employer/Employee Relationships: Non-Compete, Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation Clauses</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>During recessionary times, most people are acutely aware of the general business relationship they have with their employer.&nbsp; Few, however, fully appreciate the legal duties they may owe their employer as a result of documents they signed when they joined the company.&nbsp; This lack of understanding can lead to problems when employees, frustrated by cut-backs in compensation, decreased wages and general job instability take actions that run &ldquo;afoul&rdquo; of the contractual and common law agreements they have with their employers.&nbsp; Three (3) major pitfalls are outlined below:<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><strong>Example One:&nbsp; Confidentiality Agreements</strong></u><br />
All but a few employers require that new employees sign some form of confidentiality agreement.&nbsp; This agreement usually comes in the stack of medical forms and other documents that are presented to the employee at or around their first day of work.&nbsp; Most of these confidentiality agreements require that the employee maintain the confidentiality of information they learn while employed at the company.&nbsp; This would include company policy information, customer information, financial information, sales information, technological information, etc. which it does not want shared with its competitors.&nbsp; Employees should use caution against downloading confidential information and removing it from the company&rsquo;s premises.<br />
<br />
<u><strong><br />
Example Two:&nbsp; Non-Solicitation Agreements</strong></u><br />
Many companies that hire sales staff require that their sales employees sign a non-solicitation agreement.&nbsp; The purpose of this agreement is to stop employees from soliciting from customers (whose identities they learned of while employed by the company).&nbsp; Employers consider sales information to be owned by the company.&nbsp; Most non-solicitation agreements contain a provision called an &ldquo;injunctive relief provision&rdquo; which allows the company to go to Court for an Order that will stop an employee from soliciting any customers whose identities the employee learned of while employed at the company.&nbsp; These agreements usually contain an attorneys&rsquo; fees provision that allows the company to seek an order giving it all the attorneys&rsquo; fees the employer accrued to enforce the non-solicitation agreement.&nbsp; As a result, an employee who violates a non-solicitation agreement can find him or herself unable to contact customers and also responsible for expensive attorneys&rsquo; fees.&nbsp; There is a popular misconception that such agreements are not enforceable.&nbsp; This is a myth.&nbsp; Such agreements are generally enforceable in New Jersey to the extent that they are reasonable in scope and are designed to protect a company&rsquo;s legitimate business interest.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><strong>Example Three:&nbsp; Non-Competition Agreements</strong></u><br />
This type of agreement is not as ubiquitous as non-solicitation agreements, but it is often used with employees such as scientist and other researchers who have access to sophisticated scientific or technological information.&nbsp; The affect of such an agreement is to stop an employee from working for a competitor of the former employer for a specific period of time.&nbsp; While these types of agreements are not generally as easily enforceable as non-solicitation agreements, many courts will enforce these types of agreements if it is shown that as a result of working for the competitor, the employee will &ldquo;inevitably disclose&rdquo; sensitive information.&nbsp; Obviously, this kind of agreement, if enforced, can have a significant impact on the employee.&nbsp; The employee may be barred from working in the industry that he or she is trained for some period of time.&nbsp; This can have a devastating economic effect on the employee.</p>
<p><br />
While many of the employees may have forgotten that they signed a confidentiality agreement, most will remember signing a non-solicitation or non-competition agreement.&nbsp; If the employee is not certain about this, they should take reasonable steps to determine whether or not they signed such agreements.&nbsp; Many prospective employers will require that employee candidates sign a document stating whether or not they have entered into a non-solicitation or non-confidentiality agreement.&nbsp; If an employee has concerns about an agreement they signed, or about confidential information that they may have learned, and are unsure how these things effect a potential employment with a new employer or a new business, the time to ask questions is before the employee resigns, not after.&nbsp; Their best bet is to consult with an employment attorney prior to making mistakes that could prove to be very costly.<br />
&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/02/articles/employment/employeremployee-relationships-noncompete-confidentiality-and-nonsolicitation-clauses/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/02/articles/employment/employeremployee-relationships-noncompete-confidentiality-and-nonsolicitation-clauses/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:28:42 -0500</pubDate>
<author>jmacdonald@stark-stark.com (John E. MacDonald)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Employer Alert:  Use of New I-9 Form Required by February 2, 2009</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Beginning on <del>February 2, 2009</del> <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=52b16d962492f110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=05a0aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD">April 3, 2009</a>, all employers will need to complete a revised I-9 form for all new employees, as well as for reverification of certain employees with temporary work authorization. The following changes have been made relative to the documents that employers can accept for employment verification:</p>
<ul>
    <li>All documents presented to the employer during the verification process must be unexpired. Previously, it was not uncommon for an employer to accept certain expired document such as a United States passport.</li>
    <li>List A identity and employment authorization documentation will no longer include Temporary Resident Card (Form I-688), Employee Authorization Card (Form I-688A) and Employment Authorization Card (Form I-688B), as these cards are now obsolete.</li>
    <li>List A will now include foreign passports containing certain immigrant visas that are machine readable and passports from the Federated States of Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands if presented with an I-94 or I-94A arrival/departure record.</li>
</ul>
<p><br />
The new I-9 form will be available at <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-9.pdf">www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-9.pdf</a> beginning on <del>February 2, 2009</del> <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=52b16d962492f110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=05a0aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD">April 3, 2009</a>. The new form should only be completed for new hires and for reverification of certain employees with temporary work authorization; it should not be completed for existing employees.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/employment/employer-alert-use-of-new-i9-form-required-by-february-2-2009/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/employment/employer-alert-use-of-new-i9-form-required-by-february-2-2009/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:08:38 -0500</pubDate>
<author>mjacobs@stark-stark.com (Matthew P. Jacobs)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Paid Family Leave Provides No Additional Job Security</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>With the advent of the newest employee benefit in New Jersey, business owners ask what impact Family Leave Insurance will have on the employer&rsquo;s discretion to terminate employment due to business conditions or other considerations. The Legislature has made it clear that the amendments to the Temporary Disability Benefits law, commonly known as the &ldquo;Paid Family Leave Act&rdquo;, confer a monetary benefit, but not a leave entitlement. In other words, this law does not further erode the &ldquo;At-Will&rdquo; concept of employment, that the employer is free to change the working conditions or terminate the employment of a worker with or without notice and with or without good cause for the termination.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Of course, appropriate law limits this discretion where there is a written contract specifying a certain duration of employment or if the employer&rsquo;s action violates applicable laws (These laws include Family Leave Acts, Discrimination Laws, implied promises contained in written or oral policies, and New Jersey&rsquo;s Conscientious Employees Protection Act.) In the context of Family Leave laws, those employers who are covered under the Federal or New Jersey State Acts (Under Federal law, covered employers are those who employ 50 or more employees for each working day during 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, either at the main work site or without 75 miles of that work site. The New Jersey law applies to employers with 50 or more employees.) must still comply with the laws and regulations promulgated under these Acts. However, these amendments do not confer additional leave rights to employees.&nbsp; As such, while any employee who is covered by the New Jersey Disability Benefits law may avail himself/herself of Family Leave Insurance benefits, if they quality under the new law, those who are not otherwise protected by the Leave or other laws, do not gain any additional job protection. For example, if a company employing twenty individuals needs to eliminate the position of an employee on paid leave, due to current economic conditions, the employer may do so lawfully.<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p><br />
Must the employer pay the employee&rsquo;s wages for this paid leave period? Family Leave Insurance benefits are fully funded by employee contributions through payroll deductions, which began on January 1, 2009 (The taxable wage base is the same as Temporary Disability Insurance and Unemployment Insurance. The amounts will vary on an annual basis. The percentage of withholding in 2009 will be 0.0009 of the taxable wage base. This will increase to 0.0012 for each subsequent year.) The employer will not be required to contribute to this plan. In addition, an employer can require an employee to use up to two weeks of any paid sick leave, vacation time or other leave as full pay, if made available by the employer, prior to utilizing Family Leave Insurance benefits. <br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>For what reasons may an employee claim these benefits? Benefits shall be granted for an employee to bond with a child during the first twelve months after the child&rsquo;s birth, if the covered individual or the domestic partner or civil union partner of the covered individual, is a biological parent of the child, or for the first twelve months after the placement of the child for adoption with the covered individual. In addition, benefits can be claimed to care for a family member with a serious health condition. &ldquo;Family member&rdquo; is defined as a child, spouse, domestic partner, civil union partner, or parent of a covered individual. &ldquo;Child&rdquo; means a biological, adopted, or foster child, step-child or legal ward of a covered individual, child of a domestic partner of the covered individual, or child of a civil union partner of the covered individual, who is less than nineteen years of age or is nineteen years of age or older but incapable of self-care because of mental or physical impairment. <br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>Benefits are <strong>NOT</strong> available due to the serious health condition <u>of the covered employee</u> (In this respect, the categories are borrowed from New Jersey&rsquo;s Family Leave Act, which, unlike the Federal Act, excludes leave for the employee&rsquo;s own serious health condition). &ldquo;Serious Health Condition&rdquo; means an &ldquo;illness, injury, impairment or physical or mental condition&rdquo;, which includes any of the following:<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In-patient care or continuing treatment by a health-care provider, including any period of incapacity or subsequent treatment in connection with in-patient care. (a) &ldquo;Period of incapacity&rdquo; means inability to work, attend school or perform other regular daily activities due the serious health condition, treatment therefore, or recovery there from. OR&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Continuing treatment by a health-care provider, which involves one or more of the following: (a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A period of incapacity (inability to attend work, school, etc.) for more than three consecutive calendar days, that also involves.<br />
(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Treatment two or more times by a health-care provider. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />
OR<br />
(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Treatment by a health-care provider on at least one occasion, which results in a regime of continued treatment. Treatment includes prescription drugs, such as antibiotics. Regimes, such as resting, drinking fluids, taking aspirin, which can be initiated without visiting a health-care provider, are not sufficient.</p>
<p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any incapacity due to pregnancy or pre-natal care.</p>
<p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conditions not currently incapacitating but which require multiple treatments.</p>
<p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any period of incapacity or treatment for such incapacity due to chronic serious health condition. </p>
<p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A period of incapacity, which is permanent or long-term due to a condition for which treatment may not be effective. <br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>The above-listed inclusions are broadly stated and there are refinements and exclusions, which should be evaluated in any given situation. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Who is eligible for Family Leave Insurance benefits? An employee can collect benefits if he or she is currently employed in &ldquo;covered employment&rdquo; or out of &ldquo;covered employment&rdquo; for less than two weeks. Employment, including employment with governmental entities, covered under the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law is covered with respect to Family Leave Insurance. A claimant must have had such employment in at least twenty calendar weeks (base weeks) in New Jersey covered employment with earnings of One Hundred and Forty-Three ($143.00) Dollars or more per week, or have earned Seventy-Two Hundred ($7200.00) or more in such employment during the fifty-two weeks (base year) immediately prior to the week in which the Family Leave claim begins. <br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>Notwithstanding the above, an employee is not qualified for any period that:<br />
<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The employee receives temporary disability benefits from any source;<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The employee receives unemployment insurance benefits;<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The employee receives full salary or paid time off;<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The employee is working;<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The employee is under family leave, which did not start while the claimant was a covered individual or within fourteen days of the claimant&rsquo;s last date of work;<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The employee was on family leave for the care of a family member and the care recipient was not under the care or supervision of the health-care provider;<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The employee is out of work due to a stoppage of work, which exists because of labor dispute at the claimant&rsquo;s place of employment; or<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The employee has been discharged by the most recent employer for gross misconduct under applicable unemployment compensation law. <br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>How much is the benefit and for how long does it last? Benefits can be claimed commencing July 1, 2009. The Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Temporary Disability Insurance, will publish a prescribed form after June 1, 2009. An employee can receive a maximum of six weeks of Family Leave Insurance benefits in a twelve-month period, which is denoted as the three hundred sixty-five consecutive days that begins with the first day that the employee establishes a valid first claim for Family Leave Insurance benefits. An employee may re-establish a claim within the same period for a different care recipient, or a claim during or following employment with a different employer. However, the employee cannot receive more than six weeks of benefits during the twelve-month period. <br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>In the event of care for a family member with a serious health condition, claims may alternatively be filed for intermittent weeks or for forty-two intermittent days during the twelve-month period. The amendments impose a waiting week for the benefits to commence. No benefits will be paid for the first week, or any portion of that week, until the employee receives benefits for three weeks immediately following the waiting week. However, if the employee has been on temporary disability due to his or her own illness, there is no waiting period for the Family Leave Insurance claim to commence.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>The weekly benefit rate is based on the employee&rsquo;s average weekly wage in the eight calendar weeks immediately before the week in which the benefit commences. The rate is two-thirds of this wage, up to a maximum of Five Hundred Forty-Six ($546.00) Dollars. The daily benefit rate is computed at one-seventh of the weekly benefit rate. The maximum amount in any one-year is six weeks, or one-third of the base year earnings, whichever is less. <br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>What steps must an employee take to apply for these benefits? If an employee intends to take the benefits to participate in providing care for a family member with a serious health condition, he or she must give the employer reasonable and practicable notice, unless the time of the leave is unexpected or the time of the leave changes for unforeseeable reasons. The request must be supported by a medical certification. In addition, a reasonable effort must be made to schedule the leave so as not to unduly disrupt the operations of the employer. If a request is being made for intermittent leave in the circumstances, the minimum of fifteen days notice must be given, except if there is an emergency or other unforeseen circumstances. If possible, the employee will be required to provide a schedule of the required leave days. In the case of an employee who intends to claim insurance benefits to bond with a newborn or newly adopted child, thirty days prior notice must be given, except if the leave is unforeseeable. Failure to do so will result in a loss of two days leave. No intermittent leave is available for this category of benefit, unless agreed to by the employer. In that case, intermittent leave must be taken in periods of seven days or more. <br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>A party who believes they have been aggrieved by application of the process will have formal appeal rights within the Division of Temporary Disability Insurance. Appeal rights and provisions will be explained on all decisions issued by the Division. <br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>This analysis is intended to highlight the most salient provisions of the Family Leave Insurance benefits law, and has been derived from the Family Leave Insurance Fact Sheet published by the Department of Labor as well as other sources. Details and interpretations of the law will be published in the New Jersey Administrative Code. If there are any questions relative to the application of this new benefits law, an employer should consult counsel so as to ensure proper compliance. No doubt, unique situations will be presented and the full extent of the law will unfold as litigation ensues.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/employment/paid-family-leave-provides-no-additional-job-security/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/employment/paid-family-leave-provides-no-additional-job-security/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:05:09 -0500</pubDate>
<author>gfaber@stark-stark.com (Gerald Faber)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Stark &amp; Stark Shareholder Comments on Reaction From Bank of America &amp; Merrill Lynch Merger</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Shareholder and member of Stark&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> group, was quoted in the January 9, 2009 article, <em>Brokers Disdain Toaster Salesmen in Bank America Deal</em>. Controversy has followed Bank of America's September 15, 2008 acquisition of Merrill Lynch since day one. Initially, disputes arose over whether or not Bank of America would honor Merrill Lynch's employment contracts for the nearly 16,000 brokers affected by the acquisition. Now, two senior Merrill executives have left within days of the acquisition becoming final. </p>
<p>Mr. Lewis discusses the steps Chief Executive Officer, Kenneth Lewis, needs to take going forward in order to keep those brokers he has left, happy. You can read the full article <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&amp;sid=aMzHGkCEv2P0&amp;refer=home">here</a>. </p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-reaction-from-bank-of-america-merrill-lynch-merger/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/employment/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-reaction-from-bank-of-america-merrill-lynch-merger/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:20:18 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>The Eroding &apos;At-Will&apos; Employment Doctrine</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Shareholder and member of Stark &amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment Litigation</a> group, and <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1217497.html">Michael J. Brittan</a>, member of Stark&nbsp;&amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment Litigation</a> group, authored the article <em>The</em> <em>Eroding &lsquo;At-Will' Employment Doctrine </em>for the December 8, 2008 edition of the <u>New Jersey Law Journal.</u></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The article discusses the history and basic principles of an &quot;at-will&quot; employee relationship. The article also stresses the need for employers to include a prominent, clear and conspicuous disclaimer at the beginning of their employee handbook, and any other relevant documents, stating that nothing in the handbook or other documents changes the &ldquo;at-will&rdquo; nature of the employment relationship, nor does it create a contract for employment.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You can read the full article <a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL MJB NJLJ 12_8_08.pdf">here</a>. (PDF)</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/12/articles/employment/the-eroding-atwill-employment-doctrine/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/12/articles/employment/the-eroding-atwill-employment-doctrine/</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Media Placements</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:06:49 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Stark &amp; Stark Shareholder Comments on Advances in Broker Recruitment Protocol
</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Shareholder and Chair of Stark &amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment Litigation</a> group, was quoted in the December 2, 2008 <u>Reuters.com</u> article, <em>Financial advisory firms sign pact to ease poaching.</em> Mr. Lewis comments on the recent independent advisory firms who are rushing to sign an agreement that bars lawsuits between signatories that hire away each other's brokers. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Mr. Lewis states that with the new agreement, also commonly referred to as broker recruitment protocol, registered investment adviser firms can now recruit with less fear of litigation from a major house with deep pockets.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You can read the full article <a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL - Reuters - 12_3_08.pdf">here</a>.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/12/articles/media-placements/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-advances-in-broker-recruitment-protocol
/index.html</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/12/articles/media-placements/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-advances-in-broker-recruitment-protocol
/index.html</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Media Placements</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:36:40 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>New Jersey Employers Brace Yourself: &quot;Card Check&quot; Is Coming</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>To add to their other current woes, it is anticipated that New Jersey employers will soon be faced with higher employee costs due to proposed federal legislation known as &ldquo;Card Check.&rdquo; This legislation will make union organization far simpler in the Garden State (and everywhere else).&nbsp; In general, &ldquo;card check&rdquo; removes the &ldquo;secret ballot&rdquo; from the union organization process.&nbsp; Union organization will be largely accomplished by getting potential union members to simply sign a card indicating their desire to unionize.&nbsp; <br />
<br />
Opponents of the bill think this will lead to intimidation and threats to employees who do not wish to unionize &ndash; and will inevitably increase labor costs.&nbsp; Backers of the legislation state that this step is necessary to revitalize union organization in the United States and will lead to higher wages for employees.&nbsp; Most federal Democratic Party legislators favor the legislation, while most Republican Party members of Congress oppose it.&nbsp; Given the new balance of power in Washington, passage of &ldquo;card check&rdquo; legislation is almost a certainty.&nbsp; Look for passage of this legislation within the first 100 days of the new administration.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />
&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/11/articles/employment/new-jersey-employers-brace-yourself-card-check-is-coming/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/11/articles/employment/new-jersey-employers-brace-yourself-card-check-is-coming/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:04:45 -0500</pubDate>
<author>jmacdonald@stark-stark.com (John E. MacDonald)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Remember the WARN Act</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Many of you may remember the Federal Warn Act - an Act which requires 60 days notice of a company&rsquo;s intent to shut down a location with 100 or more employees (with various exceptions, of course). What is not largely known is that New Jersey passed a &ldquo;baby&rdquo; Warn Act earlier this year.&nbsp; </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This Act reduces the number of required full time employees from 100 to 50.&nbsp; The New Jersey WARN&nbsp;Act also eliminates the useful exception in the federal Act, which allows for termination of employees within a certain time period and other exceptions, which weakened the original federal Act.&nbsp; </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In short, the New Jersey Warn Act is a force to be reckoned with as we head deeper into the current recession.&nbsp; Employers shutting down any office location should seek legal counsel prior to taking action.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/11/articles/employment/remember-the-warn-act/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/11/articles/employment/remember-the-warn-act/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:03:54 -0500</pubDate>
<author>jmacdonald@stark-stark.com (John E. MacDonald)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>Stark &amp; Stark Shareholder Comments on Bank of America Incentives</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1011454.html">Thomas B. Lewis</a>, Shareholder and Chair of Stark &amp;&nbsp;Stark's <a href="http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-1009364.html">Employment</a> group, was quoted in the November 6, 2008 <u>Bloomberg.com</u> article <em>Bank of America Says Merrill Brokers Can Quit Without Penalty.</em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Mr. Lewis commented on the recent announcement made to the roughly 15,500 brokers Bank of America acquired after buying Merrill Lynch this past September which said that they have the ability to quit without penalty, however, if they stay, they will qualify for a bonus of as much as 100% of their annual revenue. Mr. Lewis states that the memo was created in order to alleviate the concerns of senior Merrill brokers.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>You can read the fill article on Bloomberg.com <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&amp;sid=adrVqEReEkoc#">here</a>. (Also available in PDF <a href="http://www.njlawblog.com/uploads/file/TBL - Bloomberg_com - 11_6_08.pdf">here</a>.)</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/11/articles/media-placements/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-bank-of-america-incentives/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/11/articles/media-placements/stark-stark-shareholder-comments-on-bank-of-america-incentives/</guid>
<category>Employment</category><category>Media Placements</category><category>Securities Compliance &amp; Arbitration</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:36:49 -0500</pubDate>
<author>rdeluca@stark-stark.com (Stark &amp; Stark)</author>

</item>
<item>
<title>It Ain&apos;t Over, Even After It&apos;s Over: New Jersey Court Extends Retaliation Claims Under Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) For Post-Termination Actions</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Consider this scenario: Your company has struggled with a key employee, and it is determined that the employment should be terminated. Following the advice of counsel, the parties entered into a separation agreement, severance is paid, and the employee signs a release of all claims related to employment with your company. At this point, the parties can now move on without the threat of litigation, right? Not necessarily!</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The employee files for unemployment insurance. The company responds by advising that the employee consistently failed to comply with the established standards of conduct in the workplace. You are comfortable that the statement will remain confidential, as statements by the parties in an unemployment claim are not admissible in civil actions (N.J.S.A. 43:21-11(g)). However, the disgruntled ex-employee responds by asserting that the company&rsquo;s reason for discharge is false and is motivated by retaliation for complaining about potentially discriminatory conduct, which took place during the course of employment.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Thereafter, the employee files a lawsuit, claiming that the company&rsquo;s actions have violated N.J.L.A.D&rsquo;s anti-retaliation provisions. Indeed, the alleged discriminatory conduct took place more than two years before the filing of the employee&rsquo;s new complaint! The company feels satisfied that the former employee would not be allowed to pursue this claim. First, since the original conduct occurred more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint, suit would be barred by the statute of limitations. Second, the employee already executed a release, and received severance, on the assumption that he would be barred from bringing any further employment claims. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>In the recent case of <u>Roa v.LAFE, et al</u>, 2008 WL 2627625 (App.Div. 2008) an Appellate Division Court shattered the paid-for peace of the employer, by ruling under a similar fact scenario, that N.J.L.A.D.&rsquo;s anti-retaliation provisions will apply to the company&rsquo;s conduct, even after termination of the employment relationship. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>One can conjure up many post-employment discoveries, which could put a company in jeopardy, long after it pays for closure of the employment relationship. One example is also treated in the <u>Roa</u> case. An employee may allege that in retaliation for the employee&rsquo;s asserting a discrimination claim, the employer falsely reported a termination date to a medical insurance carrier, resulting in the denial of benefits while the claim is being investigated. The anti-retaliation provision could be invoked if there is a post-termination denial of benefits, less than satisfactory employment reference, or any other action taken after the employee&rsquo;s termination.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Appellate Court reasoned that the retaliation claim is a separate cause of action under the L.A.D. In addition, this activity could be deemed as a &ldquo;continuing violation&rdquo; of the L.A.D. If so, an employee could claim that any actions during the prior two-year period could be the subject of a new discrimination claim and could revive a prior claim. In this case, even though the plaintiff filed the lawsuit more than two years after the date of termination, it was filed within two years of the date the plaintiff knew or should have known of facts supporting the retaliation claim. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>A second cautionary point in this case involves failure to inform employees of their rights under the L.A.D. through either workplace posters or employee manuals. The Court discussed several cases, which held that failure to post required notices will toll (suspend) the statute of limitations for bringing L.A.D. suits. However, this Court clarified that the statute of limitations will only be tolled&nbsp; until the aggrieved employee seeks out an attorney or requires actual knowledge of his rights. The adoption of &ldquo;equitable&rdquo; tolling requires the exercise of reasonable insight and diligence by a person seeking its protection (citations omitted).</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What lessons can be learned by the conscientious employer? Certainly, a company should continue to consider entering into termination agreements, with releases of liability, for departing employees. This is particularly true where a company would otherwise offer severance benefits, legal consideration for the employee&rsquo;s release of claims. This will maximize the company&rsquo;s benefit for the price paid in severance benefits. The employer&rsquo;s counsel should attempt to negotiate a strong provision wherein the employee acknowledges that he/she is unaware of any facts, which would support a discrimination claim. This would be stronger than the typical language, wherein the employer states that payment of severance is not an admission of liability for discrimination claims. It would be more difficult for the employee to later assert that post-termination actions on the part of the employer constituted retaliation for workplace discrimination.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Second, a company should not be lulled into complacency, even after a separation agreement and release is executed. Its representatives must still be careful not to conduct themselves in such a way, which will create negative consequences to the former employee, after leaving the employment. This case will reinforce the practice of not providing a post-termination employment reference. In addition, special care must be taken to make sure that the ex-employee is paid all earned wages, accrued vacation and sick time, or other benefits. A company must also make sure that in response to governmental or insurance inquiries, it accurately reports data such as dates of employment, wages paid, insurance-related information, etc. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Finally, the case, again, reinforces an employer&rsquo;s duty to inform employees of their rights under the L.A.D., either through workplace posters or employee manuals.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>This case underscores the necessity of having clear, well-defined employment policies and procedures, which are compliant with New Jersey law. It also demonstrates the necessity to consult counsel when planning to discharge an employee to make sure that termination agreements keep pace with changes in the law.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/11/articles/employment/it-aint-over-even-after-its-over-new-jersey-court-extends-retaliation-claims-under-law-against-discrimination-njlad-for-posttermination-actions/</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlawblog.com/2008/11/articles/employment/it-aint-over-even-after-its-over-new-jersey-court-extends-retaliation-claims-under-law-against-discrimination-njlad-for-posttermination-actions/</guid>
<category>Employment</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:04:02 -0500</pubDate>
<author>gfaber@stark-stark.com (Gerald Faber)</author>

</item>


</channel>
</rss>