Articles Posted by Insights

New Jersey Supreme Court Confirms Employee Can Be Criminally Prosecuted For Theft of Employer Documents

Published on: October 19, 2015 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

In its recent landmark ruling in State v. Saavedra, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a former school board employee who was pursing discrimination and retaliation claims against the school could be criminally prosecuted for removing confidential school documents she claimed would aid her in pursuing those legal claims. This decision was somewhat of a surprise in light of the court’s 2010 ruling in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., that an employee’s theft and use of confidential personnel documents to assist her discrimination lawsuit against her employer was protected activity under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

The upshot if these two rulings is that while an employee who steals corporate documents may not necessarily be fired for doing so, they might be subject to criminal prosecution under certain circumstances.

The Facts: Ivonne Saavedra was a clerk for the North Bergen Board of Education (the Board) who filed suit against the Board alleging discrimination and retaliation claims in violation the LAD and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). During discovery, Saavedra produced over 350 documents, including original and copies of confidential documents in violation of Board policies. Many of the documents contained sensitive educational and medical information about students, information that the Board was prohibited from disclosing to third parties by federal and state law. The Board notified the Hudson County prosecutor who in turn secured an indictment against Saavedra for official misconduct and theft. Saavedra efforts to dismiss the indictment were unsuccessful at the trial and appellate level, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Anonymous Racist Note Triggers Liability for Employer Who Failed to Undertake an Investigation

Published on: October 19, 2015 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

A recent decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (a federal court with jurisdiction over MD, NC, SC and VA) is a stark reminder to employers of the consequences of failing to appropriately respond to any and all claims of unlawful workplace harassment no, matter what the source. In Pryor v. United Air Lines, Inc. (United), the Fourth Circuit vacated summary judgment entered for United by the court below, noting that the company’s response to an anonymous violent and racially-charged note left for an employee was inadequate to shield the it from liability for creating a racially hostile work environment.

The Facts: In January 2011 July Renee Pryor, an African-American flight attendant for United Airlines, Inc. at is Dulles Airport facility, found an anonymous note in her company mailbox located in a secure mailroom restricted to United employees. The note contained numerous racial slurs and claimed to be a hunting license permitting the holder to “hunt & kill N****** . . . day or night, with or without dogs.” The note also contained an image of a lynching along with the words “this is for you.” Prior was frightened by the note an immediately shoed it to her supervisor, who told her he was “sorry” but there was not much United could to because there were no security cameras in the mailroom. The supervisor then gave Pryor an incident report to fill and told her that the report, along with the racist note, would be provided to security and the base manager. Unfortunately, the supervisor did not comply with United’s Harassment & Discrimination Policy that instructed supervisors to immediately report all complaints to the Employee Service Center (ESC) who would conduct an investigation into the claims.

Thereafter, United Management engaged in a series of missteps, including the following:

NLRB Announces New “Joint Employer” Standard Significantly Extends Liability to Employers for Workplace Labor Violations by Contractors

Published on: October 19, 2015 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

For nearly 30 years the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has reasoned that two businesses can only be deemed “joint employers” – and thus jointly responsible for purposes of collective bargaining and unfair labor practices – upon a showing that the companies exercised actual, direct and substantial control over the terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the other entity. Factors such as the right to hire, terminate, discipline, supervise and direct employees were relevant to the level of control assessment, and theoretical, limited or routine control over workplace activities of the other was generally deemed insufficient.

In a decision that may have sweeping implications for companies that subcontract work through staffing agencies or other third party vendors, the NLRB has announced a new standard that will result in many more companies being deemed “joint employers” of their third-party contractors. The Board’s expanded joint employer standard will also have implications for franchisor/franchisee, parent/subsidiary and other corporate relationships.

The New “Direct or Indirect” Control Standard: In a significant departure from established precedent, a 3-2 majority in Browning-Ferris dramatically lowered the standard for establishing a “joint employer” relationship. At issue in the case was whether Browning Ferris Industries was a joint employer with Leadpoint, a staffing services company, in a union representation election among Leadpoint workers who staffed conveyor belts in Browning-Ferris’ plant. The union already represented Browning-Ferris’ employees at the plant.

U.S. Department of Labor Moves To Restrict “White Collar” Overtime Exemptions

Published on: July 20, 2015 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

Employers: Prepare to Reclassify Employees

Ranks of OT-eligible employees will swell by an estimated 5 million, under proposed DOL rules

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) long-awaited proposals overhauling the “white collar exemptions (which include the executive, administrative and learned professional exemptions) to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) have finally arrived.

New Jersey’s Complex Business Litigation Program Offers Significant Benefits

Published on: May 25, 2015 | by Sergio D. Simões

Complex Business Litigation Program Offers Significant Benefits

Commercial Litigators and the Business Community Should Take

Over the past several years, the New Jersey Judiciary has actively endeavored to address the concerns of litigants and practitioners involved in complex business and construction cases, by developing methods to streamline and simplify the often complicated and costly litigation process. The result of the Judiciary’s effort is the recent implementation of a statewide Complex Business Litigation Program (the “Program”) for the handling of complex business, commercial and construction cases. Counsel, accountants, financial advisers and others who are often on the front lines of complex business disputes would do well to familiarize themselves with the details and workings of this Program.

Proposed Regulation Subjects Financial Advisers to Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA and Tax Code

Published on: April 22, 2015 | by Sergio D. Simões

On April 14, 2015, the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) released a proposed regulation defining who is a “fiduciary” of an employee benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) as a result of giving investment advice to a plan or its participants or beneficiaries. If adopted, the new regulation would treat individuals who provide investment advice or recommendations to an employee benefit plan, plan fiduciary, plan participant or beneficiary, IRA, or IRA owners as fiduciaries under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (the “Tax Code”). The proposed rule seeks to increase consumer protection for plan sponsors, participants, beneficiaries and IRA owners by naming financial advisers and their firms as fiduciaries, thus compelling such advisers to abide by certain duties of good faith and loyalty to their clients, subject to specific carve-outs and exceptions.

Under the current statutory and regulatory scheme, fiduciary status is central to protecting the integrity of retirement and other important tax-favored benefits. Generally, a person is a fiduciary to a plan or IRA to the extent that the person engages in specified plan activities, including rendering investment advice for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, with respect to any moneys or other property of a plan. ERISA imposes standards of care and undivided loyalty on plan fiduciaries and holds such fiduciaries liable when these duties are violated. IRA and plan fiduciaries are not permitted to engage in “prohibited transactions” which stem from conflicts of interest and endanger the security of retirement, health and other benefit plans.

EBSA’s new proposal expressly expands these duties to financial advisers and their firms, by broadening the definition of fiduciary “investment advice,” subject to specific exceptions or carve-outs for particular kinds of communications that are non-fiduciary in nature. Under the new definition, a person renders investment advice by:

Shift from COAH to State Courts Could be a Boon to Developers

Published on: March 11, 2015 | by David R. Pierce

On March 10, 2015 the New Jersey State Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling allowing trial courts in the state, rather than the state Council on Affordable Housing (“COAH”), to decide if towns are providing enough low- and moderate-income housing. The Court issued its decision after finding that COAH has repeatedly failed to establish new affordable housing guidelines.

The Court has delayed the implementation of its ruling for 120 days in order to allow parties to prepare “fair share” or “higher density” arguments. Ninety days after the Court’s March 10th ruling, municipalities will have 30 days to file declaratory judgment actions seeking immunity from litigation. Municipalities will need to show the court they have either (1) achieved substantive certification from COAH under prior iterations of the Third Round Rules before they were invalidated, or (2) had achieved “participating” status before COAH. If at the conclusion of the 120 day period municipalities have not either filed for a declaratory judgment, or have not been granted immunity, “builder’s remedy” actions may be brought against the municipality.

Currently 314 of 565 municipalities in New Jersey have plans pending before COAH. Developers and their counsel should remain vigilant as to how trial courts rule on declaratory judgment motions filed by these municipalities. For developers seeking to begin real estate development projects in any of the 251 New Jersey municipalities that do not have plans pending before COAH, developers may seek the assistance of the courts after 90 days from March 10, 2015.

Employers Who Implement Effective Sexual Harassment Policies Can Avoid Vicarious Liability

Published on: March 5, 2015 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

In its recent landmark decision in, Ilda Aguas v. State of New Jersey, No. A-35-13 (Feb. 11, 2015), the New Jersey Supreme court broke new ground in the law of sexual harassment with an opinion that can be viewed as a victory for both employers and employees. For employers, the Court formally adopted the United State Supreme Court’s affirmative defense analysis, which may now be invoked to shield employers from liability for a supervisor’s sexual harassment. Consistent with the affirmative defense, the Court made clear that the defense is only available to those employers who develop comprehensive and effective sexual harassment programs that include written polices, complaint procedures, employee training and prompt investigation of harassment complaints.

On the employee side, the Court expanded the definition of “supervisor,” thus broadening the scope of employee’s whose conduct can trigger employer liability for workplace sexual harassment.

The Facts: Aguas, a corrections officer at the Department of Corrections (DOC), alleged her male supervisors sexually harassed her over the course of several months, including inappropriate comments and touching. Aguas conceded her supervisors did not take any tangible employment action against her.

Company Email Can Now Be Used By Employees For Union Activity

Published on: February 2, 2015 | by John H. Schmidt, Jr.

Section 7 of the National Labor Relation Act protects employees’ right to communicate with one another regarding their terms and conditions of employment and to engage in unionization activities at the jobsite. However, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) historically held that employers may place reasonable restrictions on employees’ conduct and communications while on employer property and while on working time without violating Section 7 rights. Consistent with those holdings, in 2007 the NLRB issued its ruling in, holding that employers could prohibit employees from using the employer’s email system to communicate with each other about union matters or other terms and conditions of employment, even if employees were permitted access to the email system for other purposes.

That all changed with the NLRB’s recent ruling, reversing the decision. Effectively immediately, employees provided access to employer email systems for work activities may now be permitted to use these systems during non-work time for “statutorily protected communications” concerning unionization efforts, salaries and benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers looking to restrict email access for such purposes must demonstrate that the measures are necessary to maintain production, discipline or other “special circumstances” warranting restriction of these employee rights. However, the NLRB cautioned that “because limitations on employee communication should be no more restrictive than necessary to protect the employer’s interests, we anticipate that it will be the rare case where special circumstances justify a total ban on nonwork email use by employees.”

In ruling in favor of employee access to email systems for Section 7 activities during non-work time, the NLRB pointed to a recent observation by the U.S. Supreme Court that email has become a fundamental means of communication in the workplace and “some personal use of employer email systems is common and, most often, is accepted and tolerated by employers.” The NLRB concluded that employees’ Section 7 rights trump an employer’s property rights to its communications systems.

DOJ Expands Title VII Protection To Transgendered Individuals

Published on: February 2, 2015 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

By: Kathleen Connelly, Esq.

Last December Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memorandum directing the Department of Justice to consider prosecuting claims on behalf of individuals who believe they have been discriminated against based on their gender identity or transgender status. While such claims were previously not recognized under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Attorney General’s memorandum observed that “the text of Title VII, the relevant Supreme Court case law interpreting the statute, and the developing jurisprudence in this area” support the DOL’s new interpretation that Title VII’s prohibition of “sex” discrimination encompasses gender identity and transgender bias.

This action is consistent with other federal efforts to expand lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender rights. Last August the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs issued clarifying that Title VII’s prohibition of “sex” discrimination prohibits LGBT discrimination in all federal government contracts. This action was on the heels of President Obama’s issuance of , amending to expressly include gender identity as a protected class requiring affirmative action and non-discrimination in government contracts. Likewise, in its 2012 holding in , the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Title VII’s protections extended to an employee claiming discrimination on the basis of her gender identity and transgender status. On the Congressional front, lawmakers have introduced the Employment Nondiscrimination Act which would specifically prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of LGBT status, although those efforts have been stalled.