Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 11

Court rejects CEPA claim for "whistle blowing" about internal report unrelated to public interest

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
May 31 2011

Although the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, et seq. ("CEPA"), is considered one of the most expansive whistle blowing laws in the country, its reach has limits

EEOC issues regulations implementing the expansive ADA amendments

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
April 30 2011

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the agency tasked with enforcing the employment-related provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (the "ADA"), has issued final regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the "ADAAA"

N.J. court declines to extend CEPA to complaints about customer misconduct

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
March 29 2011

New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et seq. ("CEPA"), provides broad protection to a whistle-blowing employee who complains about the unlawful conduct of an employer or co-worker

Promptly stopping harasser does not shield employer that has ineffective anti-harassment policy

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
February 28 2011

While employers must act quickly to stop sexually harassing conduct when it occurs, the New Jersey Appellate Division recently issued a decision that emphasizes the importance of also promulgating effective policies calculated to prevent such conduct from occurring in the first place

U.S. Supreme Court extends Title VII retaliation protection to non-complaining employees

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
January 25 2011

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 913 (Jan. 24, 2011), holding that an employee fired because his fiancée accused their mutual employer of discrimination may maintain a retaliation claim against the employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"

When does a non-decision maker's influence trigger the "Cat's Paw" theory?

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
October 31 2010

The "Cat's Paw" theory (derived from a fable entitled "The Monkey and the Cat") refers to a person influencing the actions or decisions of another to accomplish his or her own goals

Does Title VII apply to employees who do not personally engage in protected activity?

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
October 31 2010

In June 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), does not extend to third parties who do not personally engage in protected activity

Does the FLSA bar retaliation against employees who do not complain in writing?

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
October 31 2010

In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 570 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a complaint against an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), must be in writing in order to trigger the statute's anti-retaliation provision

Third Circuit: employees may qualify for FLSA's "retail commission exception" even if their commissions are not calculated as a strict percentage of sale price

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
September 29 2010

Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that paying salespeople commissions that are not tied directly to the price of the product they sell does not necessarily render them ineligible for the retail commission exception to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. (the "FLSA"

A disabled employee may have a viable cause of action under the LAD for failure to accommodate even absent an adverse employment action

Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
-
USA
-
September 29 2010

This month, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether an employer's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation alone is sufficient to maintain a cause of action under the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (the "LAD"

next >