CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘New York’

Georgia Employers Must Become Familiar With State’s New Paid Leave Law

Posted on: July 9th, 2018

By: Will Collins

Across the country, there are an increasing number of state laws requiring that employers provide paid sick leave, including paid leave for the care of a family member. For instance, under the Georgia Family Care Act, which went into effect in July of 2017, employees who work at least 30 hours per week and receive a paid sick leave benefit may use up to five (5) days per calendar of that paid leave to care for “immediate family members.”  This includes the employee’s child, spouse, grandchild, grandparent, parent, or “any other dependents as shown on the employee’s most recent tax return.”

To be clear, the Act, which applies to the State of Georgia and all of its political subdivisions and instrumentalities as well as all employers with twenty-five (25) or more employees, does not create an obligation to provide sick leave, but instead requires covered employers that elect to provide paid sick leave to allow their employees to use a portion of that leave to care for immediate family members.

Georgia is just one of several states, including New York, expanding paid family leave obligations. While Georgia stopped short of mandating paid sick leave, eleven (11) other states have laws addressing paid leave policies. As a result, employers must be mindful of state law requirements as well as unpaid leave obligations under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

If you have questions about your leave policy or leave obligations, please contact one of the attorneys in our National Labor and Employment Practice Group to help you navigate the state and federal regulations and answer questions as they arise.

New York High Court Narrows Statute of Limitations Under Martin Act

Posted on: June 22nd, 2018

By: Ali Sabzevari

New York’s primary weapon aimed at fraud entitled the Martin Act was drastically hindered by New York’s high court, which found that the law’s statute of limitations was three years, not six years.  The case is People v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04272, ¶ 1 (New York State Court of Appeals).

The Martin Act has been used to police the securities markets since the 1920s. This Act regulates the advertisement, issuance, exchange, purchase or sale of securities, commodities and certain other investments within or from New York.  It is one of the country’s oldest anti-fraud laws and is used by the New York Attorney General to file both civil suits and criminal charges against alleged violators of the Act.

In the Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC opinion, the Court of Appeals noted that it had never before considered the law’s statute of limitations. Contemplating whether claims were governed by a three-year period or a six-year period, the Court ultimately held that the three-year term applies because of the fraudulent nature of the claims brought under the Martin Act.

This decision will have a big impact on claims brought under the Martin Act as well as the defense of such claims.  If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Ali Sabzevari at [email protected].

Philadelphia’s “Salary History Ban Law” Gets Banned!

Posted on: May 7th, 2018

By: Jen Ward and John McAvoy

More than a half-century after President JFK signed the Equal Pay Act, the gender pay gap is still with us. Women earn 79 cents for every dollar men earn, according to the Census Bureau.  What will it take to bridge that stubborn pay gap? Well, some believe we can and will reduce the impact of previous discrimination by not asking new hires for their salary history. Several cities and states agree with this approach and have passed legislation that prohibits employers from asking questions about an applicant’s salary history. In the cities and states where such laws have been passed, they are not without controversy.

Philadelphia passed a similar law last year. In response, Philadelphia’s Chamber of Commerce, backed by some of Philadelphia’s biggest employers, including Comcast and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), filed suit against the City of Philadelphia challenging the constitutionality of the salary history ban law, arguing the portion of the law that prevents companies from inquiring about an applicant’s wage history violated an employer’s free speech rights.

On Monday, April 30, 2018, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania made two rulings with respect to Philadelphia’s salary history ban law in the matter of Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia, docket no. 2:17-cv-01548-MSG (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2018) (Goldberg, J.).

First, the court found that the law as written violated the First Amendment free speech rights of Philadelphia employers. In sum, the court’s ruling is that employers can ask salary history questions.

Second, the court upheld the ‘reliance provision’ of the salary history ban law, which makes it illegal to rely upon that wage history to set the employee’s compensation.  This means that Philadelphia employers can ask salary history but cannot use it as a basis to set salary.  The purpose of this is to encourage employers to offer potential candidates what the job is worth rather than based on prior salary which could have been set based on discriminatory factors.

There is a prevailing trend nationwide for salary history ban laws. To date, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, Puerto Rico, New York’s Albany County, New York City, and San Francisco have enacted salary history ban laws, and at least 14 other states are considering following suit.  Although we anticipate future and continued legal challenges, it seems likely that laws banning salary history inquiries will continue to gain ground, particularly in more progressive states or areas where the pay disparity directly impacts a large segment of eligible voters. As such, prudent employers should prepare themselves to address this new workforce right through smart planning and proper training of employees, including managers, supervisors and HR personnel responsible for ensuring a lawful hiring process.

Want to learn more about what Philadelphia’s salary history ban law means for your business? Let us help you by analyzing your hiring practices. Please call or email the employment experts Jen Ward (267.758.6012 [email protected]) and John McAvoy (215.789.4919 [email protected]). Our firm motto and goal is “Your Problem Solved!”

DOJ Fails to Challenge 5th Circuit Ruling Striking Fiduciary Rule

Posted on: May 3rd, 2018

By: Theodore C. Peters

On March 15, 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal stuck down the “fiduciary rule” proposed by the Department of Labor (DOL), which required brokers to act in the best interests of their clients in retirement accounts.  Subsequently, there was much speculation as to whether the Department of Justice (DOJ), acting on behalf of the DOL, would appeal that decision.  The April 30, 2018 deadline for the DOJ to appeal came and went, but …. nothing.  The Fifth Circuit’s ruling, therefore, is slotted to take effect on May 7, 2018.

In late April, AARP and several state attorneys general (including California, New York and Oregon) joined forces in seeking the court’s permission to intervene as defendants in the case, and also sought an en banc hearing before the entire 17-judge circuit. AARP contends that the court’s decision striking down the DOL rule puts Americans’ retirement security at substantial risk, resulting in an “issue of exceptional importance.”  The plaintiffs in the case, opponents of the DOL rule, formally opposed the motions to intervene on April 30.  Counsel for the plaintiffs charged that the “last-minute motions do not come close to justifying their unprecedented bid to intervene…”

On May 2, the Fifth Circuit denied the intervenors’ motions.  The court’s decision looks to be the final nail in the coffin holding the DOL’s fiduciary rule.  Despite this ruling, however, the DOL still has one more card it could play – it can file a petition by June 13 to have the Supreme Court hear the case. Even if the DOL stands quietly by and does nothing, the Supreme Court could conceivably take the case up on its own.

Ultimately, this legal brouhaha focuses attention on the SEC, which is currently taking public comment on newly proposed standards of conduct for brokers and advisors.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ted Peters at [email protected].

Thorough Internal Investigations Can Offer Employers a Way to Address Sexual Harassment Complaints in a #MeToo Work World

Posted on: March 27th, 2018

By: Mark C. Stephenson
On January 6, 2014, Rosanna Mayo-Coleman filed a pro se complaint against her employer, alleging a hostile work environment, discrimination based on sex, race and age and retaliation. On March 2, 2018, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York found in her favor and awarded $13.4 million, of which $11.7 million was awarded as punitive damages. This remarkable result offers a learning opportunity to employers on the importance of internal investigation of sexual harassment claims in the new #MeToo workplace.

Plaintiff was employed by a major sugar processor as a factory maintenance worker. In 2008, her employer hired a new supervisor Tyrone Smith to manage Plaintiff’s group. Shortly thereafter, Smith allegedly began a constant tirade of sexually offensive comments, at times in front of others, directed at Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that Smith stared at her breasts and other personal parts of her body and would close doors at work, trapping her to stay with him. After she rejected his advances, Smith allegedly retaliated against her by blocking her opportunities to earn overtime pay and assigning her to cleaning work for her male counterparts, telling Plaintiff that it was “her duty as a woman to clean.”  Plaintiff sought psychiatric help and complained to upper management, who assigned an HR representative from a different facility to investigate Plaintiff’s claims. The result of that investigation was to find that Plaintiff’s claims were unfounded.

At trial, Plaintiff characterized the company’s internal investigation as cursory and incomplete. Immediately after opening arguments, Plaintiff called three employees that the HR investigation failed to interview, all of whom corroborated Plaintiff’s allegations. Even before Plaintiff testified, jurors were being made aware of the alleged defects in the employer’s investigation, thus exposing the employer to the risk that jurors would find the employer not to be credible even as Plaintiff’s presentation to the jury was beginning. While it would be speculative to suggest that the poor quality of the employer’s investigation led to the jury’s extraordinary award, certainly a careful and detailed investigatory process would have helped the employer in Mayo-Coleman to show that it took her claims seriously and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the facts. Employers coping with allegations of sexual harassment should consider retaining investigators who are experienced in witness interview techniques and related tools to ensure that internal investigations are based on a well-developed factual record.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Mark Stephenson at [email protected].