The court’s decision in Eyes of the World, Inc. v. Boci illustrates yet again the difficulties faced by a party who attempts to enforce a restrictive employment covenant, which are disfavored if too broad. Defendant Boci was an employee of plaintiff Eyes of the World, a provider of hair-removal services, until she quit and went…
Read More Court Invalidates Non-Competition CovenantOn August 30, 2011, Mayor Bloomberg signed into law amendments to the New York City Human Rights Law (specifically, to sections 8-102(18) and 8-107(3)(b) of the New York City Administrative Code) which effectively make it more difficult for an employer to refuse to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs on the ground that the requested accommodation…
Read More Amendments to NYC Human Rights Law Provide Enhanced Protections Against Religious Discrimination in EmploymentOn August 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule, entitled “Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act“. In sum, the final rule (which takes effect on November 14, 2011) requires employers to notify their employees of the employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act by posting a notice, establishes the…
Read More NLRB Issues Final Rule Regarding Employee Rights Under the NLRAIn Rashada v. New York Post et al (NY Sup. August 11, 2011), 2011 Slip Op. 32234(U), Judge Scarpulla dismissed plaintiff’s defamation action against the New York Post and the author of an article allegedly suggesting that plaintiff – one of several imams at a mosque and a Department of Corrections employee – had “radicalized”…
Read More NY trial court dismisses defamation action – statements constituted opinion, not factIn EEOC v. Dresser Rand Co., 04-CV-6300 (W.D.N.Y. August 10, 2011), a New York federal court rejected the defendant’s argument that an employment discrimination plaintiff’s decision not to pursue additional training at a local community college resulted in a failure to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff, a Jehovah’s Witness, sued his employer alleging religious discrimination in violation…
Read More Mitigation under Title VII does not require re-educationIn Ahmad v. Bivomi M. Alshorbagi and Jacal Hacking Corp. (N.Y. Sup. July 22, 2011), the court considered, and rejected, defendant’s CPLR 4404 motion for various elements of post-trial relief following a jury’s damage award. Plaintiff sued defendants, the driver and owner of a taxi that struck him at LaGuardia Airport. A trial judge granted…
Read More NY Supreme Court rejects defendants’ motion to set aside jury damages awardIn law school, a professor once conveyed to our Torts class a four-word phrase that can fairly be said to embody the teachings of thousands of judicial opinions over hundreds of years: “No evidence, no win.” Southern District of New York Judge Loretta Preska echoed that sentiment – albeit in slightly different form (“’J’accuse!’ is not enough in…
Read More SDNY: summary judgment for Bloomberg L.P. on plaintiffs’ “pattern or practice” pregnancy discrimination claimAn Appellate Division, First Dept. panel recently upheld the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 191 and 193. The offer letter that granted plaintiff an entitlement to be paid commissions also provided that the commission rates were those “reasonably expected to be paid” and “may be modified at any time”…
Read More Commission Reduction Permissible Where Expressly Authorized by AgreementFrank v. State of New York et al., 2011 NY Slip Op 04588 (App. Div. 3d Dept. June 2, 2011): Plaintiff, a state employee, asserted claims under the public-sector whistleblower law (Civil Service Law § 75-b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after he was demoted, then terminated, following his complaints of “improper governmental practices” that allegedly…
Read More NY Appellate Division: NY whistleblower election-of-remedies provision does not bar Section 1983 claimIn Mullins et al. v. City of New York, 09-3435 (August 5, 2011), the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ (4000+ NYPD sergeants) “primary duty” was not “management”, and thus they did not qualify for the “executive” exemption from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. See 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1) (overtime requirement); 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1) (executive exemption). The court’s decision centered…
Read More Second Circuit: NYPD sergeants are entitled to overtime under the FLSA