Home » Gozde Celik

Articles Posted by Gozde Celik

Third Circuit Restricts Employers’ Use of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Against Employees

Published on: September 8, 2025 | by Joshua L. Weiner and Gozde Celik

Background

The Third Circuit recently ruled that an employee’s violation of workplace cyber policies does not amount to “unauthorized access” under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). In NRA Group, LLC v. Durenleau, the company sued two former employees for sharing passwords and accessing systems in violation of company policy, arguing that this triggered CFAA liability. The Court disagreed, finding that the CFAA was intended to target true “hacking” of protected computers, not policy breaches by employees who already had system access. The Court explained that if mere policy violations triggered the CFAA, millions of everyday employees could be treated as criminals.

Why This Matters for Employers

Supreme Court Rules ADA Does Not Protect Retirees

Published on: June 30, 2025 | by Gozde Celik and Joshua L. Weiner

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Stanley v. City of Sanford that retirees are not “qualified individuals” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and therefore cannot bring employment discrimination claims based on events that occurred after they retire. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained that ADA protections under Title I apply only to individuals who currently hold a job or are seeking employment. Thus, once an individual has fully retired and is no longer in the workforce, they fall outside the scope of the statute.

The facts in Stanley were fairly straightforward. The plaintiff, a retired firefighter, sued the City of Sanford, Florida, alleging that its policy of providing only 24 months of health insurance coverage to those who took early retirement due to disability – while offering lifetime coverage to those who retired at the standard age of 65 – was discriminatory. The policy had been in place since 2003, but the firefighter challenged it only after retiring due to her disability.

The Court rejected her claim, emphasizing that the ADA protects people, not benefits, and that Congress intended to reserve Title I claims only to current employees or job applicants that could plead and prove they could perform the essential functions of their current or sought-after job with or without accommodation. Importantly, the Court noted that had the plaintiff brought her claim while still employed or during the period between her diagnosis and her retirement – when she still could have been considered a “qualified individual” – her claim might have been viable.

SCOTUS Decision Makes it Easier for Employees of a Majority Group to Prove “Reverse Discrimination”

Published on: June 13, 2025 | by Gozde Celik and Joshua L. Weiner

On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously held that plaintiffs from majority demographic groups do not have to satisfy a heightened burden to prove discrimination under Title VII. Although lower courts were split on the issue, the Court’s decision endorsed the view that was already in place in the Second and Third Circuit, under which plaintiffs do not have to show “background circumstances” as to why their employer was the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

The Court’s reasoning rested on the spirit behind Title VII, which, as the Court explained in its opinion, prohibits discrimination against any individual in a protected group and that requiring a heightened evidentiary standard against specific groups violated the language and the purpose of the statute.

Why This Matters

Charitable Residuary Beneficiaries Under a Will

Published on: January 17, 2025 | by James K. Estabrook and Gozde Celik

For many, designating a portion of one’s estate to charities and charitable purposes is an essential and significant part of their Last Will and Testament. Those seeking to make contributions to causes and organizations they are passionate about should be wary of the costs entailed in how such contributions are distributed. Under New Jersey law, when such contributions are designated in the form of a residuary bequest, the State Attorney General is required to exercise its power to protect the public’s interest in charitable gifts and seek costly accounting and lengthy review services, which ultimately drain the estate of funds it could have extended to the aforementioned charitable causes and organizations.

Under N.J. Ct. R. 4:80-6 and R. 4:28-4, the New Jersey State Attorney General is required to review and approve the accounting and administration of an estate when the estate leaves a residuary, or percentage, amount to a charitable organization. The Office of the Attorney General will require the filing of: (1) intermediate and/or final Accounting; (2) statement and calculations of any commissions paid to trustees or executors; (3) final distribution and disbursement schedule of bequests; (4) affidavit of any attorney’s and accountant’s rendered services; and (5) Refunding Bond and Releases executed by the charitable beneficiaries.

After receiving such documentation, the Attorney General’s office must approve the amount the charitable beneficiaries are being given, and such approvals could face backlogs and other administrative delays. Further, a thorough examination into the charitable organization could jeopardize its ability to receive its bequest and could even result in a court redirecting the bequest to a different charity under the cy pres doctrine, as a recent decision in the Appellate Division revealed. See Matter of Estate of Heinecke, No. A-3604-21, 2024 WL 1125186 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. March 15, 2024).

Texas District Court Strikes Down DOL’s Regulation Increasing Minimum Salary Requirement for White Collar Overtime Exemption

Published on: November 22, 2024 | by Joshua L. Weiner and Gozde Celik

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) final regulation increasing the salary threshold for the “white collar” overtime exemption came to a halt on November 15, 2024, when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated and set aside the regulation as exceeding the DOL’s statutory rulemaking authority.

The regulation sought to increase the salary requirements established in 1975 for the executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) exemptions (commonly referred to as the “white collar” exemptions) to the overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The FLSA generally requires overtime pay for employees who work over forty hours in a week. However, under the EAP exemptions, those overtime requirements do not apply to employees employed in a bona fide administrative, executive, or professional capacity. To be classified under one of the EAP exemptions, the employee must i) meet or exceed a minimum salary requirement, and ii) meet certain duties tests mandated by the FLSA.

The challenged rule issued by the DOL raised the previous minimum salary requirement of $684 per week, or $35,568 per year, in three stages. The initial stage was rolled out on July 1, 2024, and raised the minimum salary for EAP overtime exemption to $844 per week, or $43,880 per year, placing an estimated one million previously exempt employees into nonexempt status. The second rollout, which was set to take place on January 1, 2025, sought to raise the minimum salary requirement to $1,128 per week/$58,656 per year. Following these initial increases, the minimum salary requirement was set to be raised every three years based on contemporary earnings data.