Employment Litigation - Page 9 of 16

Pay Equity Update: New York City’s New Salary Range Disclosure Law

Several states and localities have passed laws that seek to address pay inequity, based on gender, race and other protected categories. While the intent behind these laws is similar, the laws impose different obligations. New York City is the latest locality to impose a salary range disclosure requirement on employers. On January 15, 2022, the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) was amended to prohibit employers with four or more workers (including independent contractors) from advertising a job, promotion or transfer opportunity without stating the minimum and maximum salary for the position. The range may extend from the lowest to the highest salary the employer in good faith believes at the time of the posting it would pay for the advertised job, promotion or transfer opportunity. New York City’s salary range law is effective May 15, 2022.

Continue reading “Pay Equity Update: New York City’s New Salary Range Disclosure Law”

Benefit Plan Descriptions May Create Unilateral Contracts in Pennsylvania

Written descriptions of employee benefits may expose Pennsylvania employers to additional contractual obligations and liabilities. According to a three-judge Pennsylvania Superior Court panel, providing written descriptions to employees regarding various benefits, incentives and rewards may form a binding, unilateral contract creating rights and obligations separate from an employee’s at-will relationship with the employer.

Continue reading “Benefit Plan Descriptions May Create Unilateral Contracts in Pennsylvania”

State & Local Employment Law Developments: Q4 2021

The fourth quarter of 2021 continued the trend of increasing regulation of the workplace by state and local governments. Although it is not possible to discuss all state and local laws, this post provides an overview of recent and upcoming legislative developments to help you and your organization stay in compliance. (Please note that developments related to issues such as minimum wage rates and COVID-19 are not included.)

Continue reading “State & Local Employment Law Developments: Q4 2021”

Illinois Appellate Court Specifies BIPA Accrual of Statute of Limitations

On December 15, 2021, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court decided a heavily litigated issue under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA): When does the statute of limitations to file suit under BIPA start to run? In more technical terms, when does a claim accrue under BIPA? In the first appellate court decision addressing this issue, Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, the court held that BIPA claims accrue each time an entity captured biometrics in violation of BIPA.

The plaintiff in Watson brought a putative class action lawsuit under BIPA in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging that the defendant did not comply with BIPA’s multiple procedural requirements in deploying a so-called biometric timeclock that scanned employees’ fingerprints or handprints. The trial court held that the statute of limitations for plaintiff’s BIPA claims was five years — a conclusion mostly consistent with a subsequent appellate court decision on this issue. It also concluded that plaintiff’s claims accrued with the first alleged biometric scan. Since plaintiff’s initial scan occurred more than five years before he filed suit, the court held his suit was time-barred.

Continue reading “Illinois Appellate Court Specifies BIPA Accrual of Statute of Limitations”

California Appellate Court Rules Stray Remarks Enough to Defeat Summary Judgment In Age Discrimination Case

A California Court of Appeal recently held that stray remarks by a non-decision maker regarding a position not sought after by the plaintiff may nonetheless be enough to defeat summary judgment in an age discrimination case in Jorgensen v. Loyola Marymount University.

Continue reading “California Appellate Court Rules Stray Remarks Enough to Defeat Summary Judgment In Age Discrimination Case”

Not Every Whistleblower Is a “Whistleblower” under New Jersey’s CEPA

A recent decision issued by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a reminder that not every employee who “blows the whistle” is a “whistleblower” protected under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), and that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s gatekeeping instructions to trial courts in Dzwonar v. McDevitt (2003) are alive and well.

Continue reading “Not Every Whistleblower Is a “Whistleblower” under New Jersey’s CEPA”