New Jersey Safe Act Provides Unpaid Leave For Victims Of Domestic Violence

Posted on July 30th, by Editor in Counseling & Compliance Training, Fair Pay Act Obligations. Comments Off on New Jersey Safe Act Provides Unpaid Leave For Victims Of Domestic Violence

By: Marion B. Cooper

On July 13, 2013, Governor Chris Christie signed the New Jersey Security and Financial Empowerment Act (New Jersey SAFE Act) into law.  Effective on October 1, 2013, the New Jersey SAFE Act, covering public and private employers with 25 or more employees, provides up to 20 days of unpaid leave in one 12-month period when an employee or their child, parent, spouse, domestic or civil union partner has been the victim of a domestic violence incident or a sexually violent offense and the employee has been employed by the employer for at least 12 months and 1,000 base hours during the 12-month period immediately preceding the leave.

Under the New Jersey SAFE Act, each incident of domestic violence or any sexually violent offense constitutes a separate offense for which the eligible employee may take leave, so long as the … Read More »


Unpaid Internships – Opportunity or Liability?

Posted on July 26th, by Editor in Counseling & Compliance Training. Comments Off on Unpaid Internships – Opportunity or Liability?

By: Mark E. Terman

Unpaid internships have long been viewed by students, recent graduates and industry newcomers as a chance to gain experience that might help them select or launch a career, and to some, a chance to eventually land a paying job.  Employers can capitalize on this to teach their trade or profession and find new talent; but, they should not use interns just to cut labor costs.

The United States Department of Labor and many states use six criteria to determine whether internships in for-profit company operations can lawfully be unpaid: 1) the internship must be similar to training given in an educational institution; 2) regular paid workers are not displaced; 3) the intern works under close observation; 4) the employer derives no immediate advantage from intern activities; 5) there is no guaranty of employment upon internship completion; and 6) it is clear up front … Read More »


NJ Supreme Court Expands The Scope Of Retaliation Claims Under The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

Posted on July 23rd, by Editor in Crisis Management. Comments Off on NJ Supreme Court Expands The Scope Of Retaliation Claims Under The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

By: Jerrold J. Wohlgemuth

Under the guise of promoting the “broad remedial purposes” of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), the New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided that employees may be protected from retaliation under the LAD even when they complain about offensive sexual comments by a supervisor which would not violate the law because they were not heard by any female employee.  In Battaglia v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the plaintiff objected to his supervisor’s repeated use of crude sexual language during discussions with other men about women in the workplace,  and made a vague reference to that language in an anonymous letter of complaint to management.  The employer investigated the complaints raised in that letter, but did not pursue the issue of offensive sexual comments because the letter was too vague to understand that the reference to “language … Read More »


Supreme Court Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional — What Does this Mean for Plan Sponsors?

Posted on July 12th, by Editor in Counseling & Compliance Training. Comments Off on Supreme Court Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional — What Does this Mean for Plan Sponsors?

Editor’s note: Along with their alert on the IRS recent guidance on confirming the previously announced one-year transition rule for the employer “shared responsibility” mandate and related reporting obligations under the Affordable Care Act, our colleagues in in the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Practice Group have put out an alert on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in United States vs. Windsor.  The complete text of the alert appears below.

Supreme Court Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional — What Does this Mean for Plan Sponsors?

By: Frances P. LaFleur and Cristin M. Obsitnik

The U.S. Supreme Court recently paved the way for legally married same-sex spouses to have the same federal rights and benefits as married opposite-sex spouses.  In United States vs. Windsor, the Court struck down as   unconstitutional the federal definition of “marriage” as only between a man and a … Read More »


What the Delay of the Employer Mandate Means for Plan Sponsors

Posted on July 12th, by Editor in Counseling & Compliance Training. Comments Off on What the Delay of the Employer Mandate Means for Plan Sponsors

Editor’s note: Our colleagues in the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Practice Group have put out an alert on the recent IRS guidance confirming the previously announced one-year transition rule for the employer “shared responsibility” mandate and related reporting obligations under the Affordable Care Act.  The complete text of the alert appears below.

What the Delay of the Employer Mandate Means for Plan Sponsors

By Sarah Millar, Dawn Sellstrom and Summer Conley

Late on July 9, 2013, the IRS issued Notice 2013-45 confirming the previously announced one-year transition rule for the employer “shared responsibility” mandate (also known as the “play or pay” mandate) and the related reporting obligations under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The IRS expects to issue proposed rules describing the information reporting requirements this summer. During this transition year, the IRS is encouraging employers and other reporting entities to voluntarily comply with the information reporting … Read More »


Supreme Court Applies Tougher “But For” Standard to Title VII Retaliation Claims

Posted on July 1st, by Editor in Counseling & Compliance Training. Comments Off on Supreme Court Applies Tougher “But For” Standard to Title VII Retaliation Claims

By: William R. Horwitz

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, decided June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can no longer establish a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), merely by demonstrating that retaliation was a “motivating factor” in the employer’s decision to fire, demote or otherwise take adverse action.  Instead, plaintiffs must demonstrate that retaliation was the “but for” reason for the employer’s adverse action.  In other words, plaintiffs must show that the adverse employment action would not have happened absent the employer’s unlawful retaliatory motive.  This holding makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail on Title VII retaliation claims.

Defendant University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (the “University”) and Parkland Memorial Hospital (the “Hospital”) entered into an … Read More »




Subscribe to Alerts

Please fill out our sign-up form to be updated on new posts.

Do You Have At Least 20 Employees in California?

By Pascal Benyamini

Currently, if you are an employer with 50 or more employees within 75 miles, you are required, under the federal Family and...

Donald Trump’s Labor Secretary Revokes Obama-Era DOL Joint Employer and Independent Contractor Guidance

By Philippe A. Lebel

On June 7, 2017, U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta announced that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is withdrawing two...

Part IV of “The Restricting Covenant” Series: Coaches and Colleges

By Lawrence J. Del Rossi

This is the fourth article in a continuing series, “The Restricting Covenant.” It discusses the concept of protectable “playbooks”...