Supreme Court Rejects Reverse Age Discrimination Claim
March 03, 2004
By a 6-3 majority, the United States Supreme Court rejected a claim of reverse discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, finding that Congress in enacting the ADEA concluded that the "enemy of 40 is 30, not 50." <i>General Dynamics v. Cline</i>, 2004 WL 329956 (U.S. 2/24/04).
A Word to the Wise
March 03, 2004
Many major employers have adopted internal dispute resolution programs designed to resolve internally employment disputes, and the numbers of such programs are only increasing. In prior years, these programs typically included a mediation step and ended in a final step of binding arbitration. Under such programs, employees were barred from opting out of the program to bring their claims in court. This is still the case with many employer dispute resolution programs. A growing number of employers, however, have moved away from this binding arbitration model and instead have provided employees with the option of opting out of the program after the mediation stage and permitting the employee to take his or her claim to court.
Spam At Work Gets Another Look
February 09, 2004
In our August 2003 issue, Jay Waks and Joshua Abraham reviewed the issue of workplace spam in their article entitled "A New York Perspective on Workplace Spam." Messrs. Waks and Abraham addressed in detail the controversial California Supreme Court decision on the topic that held that an employer had failed to satisfy the harm element in a trespass to chattel action where its former employee "spammed" it with 175,000 emails. <i>Intel Corp. v. Hamidi</i>, 30 Cal.4th 1342 (2003). A New York trial court recently revisited the employee spam issue in the post-Intel landscape. <i>School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz</i>, Index No. 115172-03, (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 12/22/03) (Richter, J.). The court's ruling affirms the validity of the Waks-Abraham view of the state on New York law on the troubling topic of workplace spam.
Update: Danger to Unsuccessful Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs
February 09, 2004
The September 2003 issue of <i>New York Employment Law & Practice</i> published my article entitled "Be Wary of Rule 54(d)'s Costs Provision," in which I discussed the award of costs to prevailing defendant employers in employment law cases. I observed that courts have often assessed substantial costs awards against even low-income plaintiffs whose employment law cases are dismissed or lost at trial, although there are arguments available to plaintiffs' counsel in some situations that can be used to minimize or eliminate such awards. A January 2004 decision on a costs motion by Eastern District of New York Judge Arthur D. Spatt reinforces several of the points made in the September article, and further dramatizes the dangers of potential costs awards to plaintiffs with marginal cases.
Workplace Rights of Domestic Violence Victims
February 09, 2004
The New York City Human Rights Law was amended to require employers to provide reasonable accommodation to employees and applicants who are victims of domestic violence, sex offenses or stalking, and to prevent employers from discriminating against them because of their status as victims. NYC Adm. Code '' 8-101, 8-102, 8-107 and 8-107.1 According to Mayor Bloomberg, who signed the amendment into law on Dec. 22, 2003, these people are often unable to separate their status as victims from their jobs due to outside harassment or sexual assault impacting them at their workplace. Many times, victims of these crimes are late or miss several days of work, which can eventually lead to the loss of a job. Mayor Bloomberg believes that providing "reasonable accommodation" in the workplace will enable victims to remain productive and self-reliant, as well as help employers to retain their employees, minimize on-the-job disruptions and increase productivity.
A Word to the Wise
February 09, 2004
The employment-at-will doctrine is the bane of the plaintiffs' bar. Exceptions under New York law are rare and strictly construed against the employee. More than just a shield, the at-will doctrine has been a seeming impenetrable wall insulating employers from liability. Is there ever an instance where an employee can invoke the at-will doctrine for his or her benefit? Just ask Seth Brody.
Citigroup Executive Properly Denied Benefits
February 09, 2004
Citigroup properly exercised its discretion when it denied a terminated executive the right to exercise his unvested shares of stock, cancelled his unvested stock options, and denied benefits to him under its severance, deferred compensation, and supplemental executive retirement plans, rules Judge Naomi Buckwald in granting Citigroup's motion for summary judgment. <i>Welland v. Citigroup, Inc.</i>, 2003 WL 22973574 (S.D.N.Y. 12/17/03)
