New York Business Litigation Attorney Blog

New York Employment Litigation: Lay-Off Legalities

Fri, 18 May 2012 15:59:07 -0500

A New York City employment litigation case centers on the issue of whether employers have to give notice to their employees of a layoff.

Our Manhattan employment litigation attorneys know that the answer is: It depends.

We'll explain farther down, but here's what we know so far of this case:

According to Reuters, a once-prominent law firm (the 11th largest in the country) recently laid off 450 employees, following a mass exodus of 120 partners and three out of four co-chairmen.

At its peak, the firm was the employer of some 1,300 lawyers. That was back in 2007. Now, federal regulators are trying to sort through what could be a huge headache: the fact that the firm's pension plan is underfunded by about $80 million for some 1,800 people.

The firm has been mired in debt for several years, and when it asked once-highly paid partners to take a salary cut, a large number of them left.

The problems have only continued from there, including a number of lawsuits.

In one case, a janitorial service is suing for about $300,000, claiming the firm, with offices in Manhattan, has failed to pay its cleaning bill up through the end of April.

And now, it's being sued by a former employer who has filed a class action claim, saying the firm did not give her and other employees the required 60 days notice prior to the lay-off.

Employees were warned on May 4 that the firm may shutter its doors. However, it didn't actually give employees affirmative word that their employment would be terminated, effective May 11.

So does this woman, and those in the class, have a case?

Possibly.

The federal government has what is known as the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. This was passed in the summer of 1988 and became effective early the following year.

What WARN does is give workers protection by mandating that employers provide at least 60 days advance notice anytime there is an anticipated mass layoff or plant closing. It must be given either directly to those workers who may be affected or to their union representatives.

Employers who would fall under WARN's purview would be those that within the last year, have had more than 100 full-time employees who have worked there for longer than six months. Government agencies are exempt. The employees that would be covered would include both salaried and hourly workers and managerial staff and supervisors. The only ones not entitled to such notice would be business partners.

However, there are exceptions to WARN, and this situation may fall into that. For example, for plant closings, business partners can avoid the notice if there is any situation in which there is an opportunity to seek new capital or business and providing notice would destroy any chances for tha.

There's also an exception for "unforeseeable business circumstances." This would be closings and layoffs caused by some business circumstance that was not foreseeable at the time of notice. This is probably the defense that the law firm in this case will fall back on.

And finally, there is an exception for a natural disaster. This is example is pretty self-explanatory.

If an employer is going to use any of the above-mentioned reasons for giving less than 60 days notice, the burden of proof lies with the company.

New York City Commercial Litigation: Taking On An Airline

Mon, 14 May 2012 15:21:45 -0500

New York City commercial litigation attorneys know that Steve Rothstein was right about one thing: It's not easy to take on giant corporations.

Rothstein is embroiled in what has now been a highly-publicized New York City commercial litigation contract dispute with American Airlines, which revoked Rothstein's unlimited air pass amid allegations of fraud.

Rothstein rightly concedes that large corporations have deep pockets and will fight tooth and nail to protect their bottom dollar. Of course, when you're in the right and you have a skilled New York litigation attorney with decades of experience, your odds of winning are much greater.

In this case, Rothstein is appealing the original verdict, which determined American Airlines was within its rights to terminate the contract on the basis of fraud.

Here's what know of this case, according to The New York Post:

Back in 1987, Rothstein, an investment banker, purchased an unlimited air pass from the airline for $250,000. For an additional $150,000, he also bought a companion pass. These passes gave him unlimited access to air travel on the airline.

And he certainly took advantage of it.

According to the airline, he clocked some 10 million miles on an estimated 10,000 flights. He frequently used his companion pass to fly home strangers who were stranded or in a bind.

There were months he would travel to the other side of the world - 18 times. He would fly to Canada, just for a sandwich, and be home by dinner. His daughter attended a Swiss boarding school and his son went to countless pro-baseball games across the country.

But all this was within his rights under the contract.

However, all of this was costing American Airlines money. A lot of it. Millions.

It wasn't until 2008, though, that they could do anything about it.

Eventually, it appears it was Rothstein's random acts of kindness that did him in. In fact, he gave away some 14 million air miles. When he didn't know who his flight companion would be (maybe that mother who was trying to rush home to her sick child, or the priest trying to make it to a bedside to administer last rights), he would schedule flights under the name "Bag Rothstein." This, of course, was a phony name, and this was the basis the airline used to prove Rothstein had committed fraud, thereby voiding the contract.

Rothstein sued, but the judge found in the airline's favor.

Now, he's still fighting to get back his air pass - which he said has defined him for all these decades. In his words, "A contract's a contract."

Except if there's fraud.

If you have questions about your contract dispute, contact the New York City business litigation attorneys at the Law Offices of Ira S. Newman.

Great Neck Business Litigation: Are Defamation Cases Worth It?

Thu, 10 May 2012 14:37:08 -0500

Great Neck business litigation attorneys know that in many cases, defamation lawsuits are not always a great idea.

They can be time-consuming, difficult to prove and sometimes don't net much of a result - and that's in cases where the plaintiff is actually 100 percent in the right.

However, when Great Neck business litigation stems from defamation that clearly caused tangible and substantial financial losses, a civil lawsuit may be the best option.

That's what's happening to one New York blogger, who up until now has remained anonymous. According to Reuters and other news outlets, the blogger has been ordered by a state judge to show up in court to answer to allegations that a blog containing false reports about a Chinese company was written for the sole purpose of driving down the value of that company's stock.

The blogger, who is not identified by the media outlets except by his blog URL, was allegedly served with an electronic subpoena via e-mail. He's mandated to show up to court on May 16.

The target of the blogger's words, allegedly, was a Chinese company called Deer Consumer Products. This is a company that is known for making appliances.

According to the lawsuit, the blogger reportedly put out the (false) word that the company had been engaging in fraudulent land deals in China. This in turn caused numerous investors to back away or back out, the company says. It is seeking upwards of $100 million in compensation from the blogger as a result of lost trading profits.

What's interesting is that this is not the only case like this. In fact, a number of bloggers have been accused of writing up phony pieces aimed at Chinese companies. A number of those companies have hit back hard with legal action.

In fact, the case involving Deer is one of three against the same, anonymous blogger. Other cases were filed by Sino Clean Energy (coal fuel product) and Silvercorps. Metals Inc., a producer of Chinese silver.

Deer Products says that within little more than a week, stock in the company dropped from about $11 a share to $8. Meanwhile, short interest spiked by 500,000 shares.

Allegedly, the defamation wasn't so much about hurting the company with the defamation, as making money off the ensuing flurry of sales when the stock prices dipped.

Attorneys for the blogger say he isn't even located in New York, and therefore the case should be dismissed based on the fact the fact that this court wouldn't have jurisdiction. Further, they stand by the blogger's claims.

Of course, one of the defenses to defamation is that the claims are in fact true. Other elements of defamation include whether it is a matter of public concern and whether there has been damage to the plaintiff.

So there is a big difference between this type of case, and say, your neighbor putting fliers in your other neighbors' mailboxes alleging falsities about you. An incident such as that may fall under criminal harassment statutes, but could be a difficult sell in court.

Of course, if you are struggling with whether or not your claim rises to the level worthy of litigation, contact an experienced Great Neck business litigation lawyer, who can help you weigh your options.

Great Neck Employment Law: Unpaid Internships

Sat, 05 May 2012 09:40:58 -0500

Great Neck employment lawyers know that unpaid internships can be a great way for new workers to get their foot in the door.

It's important to note, however, that Great Neck employment litigation can result when companies aren't careful to walk the fine line between having someone learn the ropes and having someone carry all the ropes - unpaid.

This issue recently came to light when several large media companies were sued in New York City by former unpaid interns who said they were taken advantage of by their employers. Instead of being trained and gaining footing in the field, the interns said they were simply providing free labor by completing tasks that they believed had nothing to do with the industry.

So while it may be no big deal for an intern to run out and grab the morning meeting coffee every once in a while, it becomes an issue when that's all they're doing. If you're an intern and all you're doing is menial work, there's likely a problem.

In the case of this employment pay dispute, the former interns said they were responsible for making coffee, taking lunch orders, coordinating deliveries, doing secretarial work and managing expense reports. The workers have alleged that if the companies had not used them, they would have had to hire someone to complete those tasks.

In some circles, the theory is that unpaid interns should almost be an inconvenience for the employer. They are supposed to be training those interns and making sure that he or she actually gets something valuable out of the experience.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, which is spelled out by the Department of Labor, offers a six-factor checklist that lays out the criteria that for-profit companies have to follow with regard to unpaid interns.

Because interns aren't technically employees, they don't have to be paid minimum wage or overtime. However, there is a fine line between who is an intern and who is an employee. Someone can't simply agree that they'll be an intern, meaning they can't just wave their right to fair wages. There is certain criteria has to be met.

Here is what the Fair Labor Standards Act says:

1. An internship is akin to a training that would be provided in an educational environment;

2. The experience of being an intern is for the benefit of the intern;

3. An intern can't replace or displace regular employees. He or she must work under the close supervision of the staff that is already there;

4. An employer doesn't get any immediate advantage from the intern's presence, and in fact, in some cases, the operations of the employer might be impeded;

5. The employer doesn't have to offer the intern a job at the end of the internship;

6. Both parties must understand that the intern is not eligible for payment for his or her time there.

New York City Employment Law: Illegal Immigrants Also Deserve OT

Wed, 02 May 2012 08:51:31 -0500

New York City employment law is clear: illegal immigrants must be paid overtime too.

New York City employment lawyers were closely following the case involving Cindy's Total Care Inc., a nail salon in Manhattan, and the U.S. Department of Labor.

Originally, the department sued the company, saying it owed overtime pay to its employees. The nail salon sued back, saying it didn't have to pay overtime because the workers were illegal immigrants. Who won?

The Department of Labor - to the tune of more than $245,00 in back pay and court costs to some 32 employees. The nail salon has also been ordered to fix its violations with regard to record keeping and overtime pay, as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

We all know that under federal law, that hourly workers must be paid overtime for any work they do over and above 40 hours. This case, Solis v. Cindy's Total Care Inc., however, resolves the issue of how illegal immigrants factor into the equation. This is actually not a new development. Courts have long held that employers have to pay their workers a fair wage, regardless of whether of their immigration status.

This all started by an investigation into the luxury spa and salon's practices that was kick-started by the department's New York City office in the Wage and Hour Division. That investigation uncovered the fact that employees were being mandated to work more than 40 hours each week and were not being paid overtime - that is, a time-and-a-half rate, which is required under the law. Instead, the owner was paying her workers a set rate for each day, no matter how many hours they had actually worked. Most of her employees were working 10 hours each day for six days every week.

What's more, the department revealed that the salon owner was keeping no record of how many hours were actually worked and how much each employee was being paid.

Maria Rosado, who heads the New York City division of the labor department, said that low-wage workers in this type of industry are vulnerable and often taken advantage of. She said they are afraid to speak out about wage violations because they may fear retaliation or even deportation. She said, however, that the labor department would aggressively investigate such claims, particularly because not only are workers' rights infringed upon, but it gives those employers who skirt the law an unfair advantage over competitors.

The breakdown of the findings were as follows: $118,000 in overtime wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages (which are paid directly to the employees affected); $8,400 in trial costs.

The Fair Labor Standards Act mandates that workers have to be paid at least the federal minimum wage - which is $7.25 each hour - as well as time-and-one-half of their hourly rate for each hour that they work over 40 hours.

Additionally, the law mandates that businesses have to keep accurate and thorough records of how much time their workers are on-the-clock, and how much they earn.

New York City Theft of Trade Secrets Alleged by AIG

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:16:10 -0500

An insurance company is alleging theft of trade secrets in New York City by a former administrator.

New York City business attorneys know that this kind of violation is addressed in 18 USC 1839 and 18 USC 1832. There, trade secrets are defined as any type of information or product (there's a long list that includes financial, business, scientific and more) in which the owner has taken some reasonable measures to keep the information a secret and that the information has some economic value - whether actual or potential - that is derived from it being a secret.

The actual theft of a trade secret is when a person steals that information or product (either outright or through some form of deception or fraud) when they don't have the right or permission. People can still be prosecuted under this law even if they aren't directly responsible, but if they conspire to do this with others or if they purchase or receive the trade secrets.

Trade secrets are important for New York City businesses to thrive. For example, if you have a sauce company, the recipe you use is considered a trade secret - if everyone knew it, it would no longer hold its value because anyone could reproduce it.

The same general concept applies in this case, in which New York City-based insurance company American International Group Inc. has filed a civil lawsuit against the man who used to run the aircraft leasing arm of its company. The man in question is now a billionaire in Los Angeles. AIG officials say the former administrator stole company secrets, lured customers away and started taking away AIG's business deals when he left in 2010 to work for a competing firm, Air Lease Corp., of which the 66-year-old is the owner.

AIG says that their former employee used flash drives - 16 of them - to download some 13,000 of AIG's files, including price information, previous contracts, statements of work and letters of intent. They allege that AIG likely lost several million dollars as a result of his actions, and the company is seeking to recover it through this New York City business litigation.

A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles billionaire says the claims are baseless.

The man became rich after co-founding a company called International Lease Finance Corp., also known as ILFC. In 1990, he sold that company to AIG for $1.3 billion. He stayed on with the company after that to help run operations.

But that business relationship took a bad turn when AIG accepted a federal bailout back in 2008. That bailout meant the government would have oversight of the company and its subsidiaries - including ILFC. He tried on multiple occasions to buy ILFC back from AIG, but when that didn't pan out, he left and founded Air Lease. To do so, he used contacts he had culled in the four decades he had been in the aircraft leasing industry.

Because of his regard within the industry, he was able to take customers with him, as well as some of the top executives who had headed ILFC. The lawsuit alleges those top executives worked in concert with the billionaire - in fact, at his direction - to take information from AIG while they still worked there.

It's unfortunate when business relationships don't work out. But when it happens, it's important to ensure that your financial and business interests are protected. Hiring an experienced New York City business litigation attorney is crucial to achieving that end.

New York City Employment Retaliation Claim Results in Costly Settlement

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:12:15 -0500

A lawsuit involving New York City employment retaliation and discrimination has been settled for $750,000, according to a recent report by The New York Times.

Our New York City employment discrimination attorneys understand that a black employee of the city's Human Resources department claimed that the city took action against her after she complained about how administrators secured government contracts.

That settlement was announced just three days after jurors in the Federal District Court awarded her $420,000 in compensatory damages following a trial alleging discrimination and retaliation. All but $100,000 of that sum was found against the commissioner of the agency, which is involved in servicing more than 3 million people.

A jury had also decided that the city should pay punitive damages, but the city settled on the $750,000 amount before the jury could decide how much that could be - indicating city officials believed a jury might have ruled for an even higher amount. Likely, they agreed to simply pay this and not file an appeal.

Still, the city insisted the claim had no merit, and the decision to settle was nothing more than a savvy business move in order to save taxpayers' money. However, given the jurors' findings, it seems there may have been more weight to the employee's claims than they are giving credit.

As the human resource agency's chief contracts officer, the plaintiff said she objected to what she believed was preferential treatment that was given to companies in which the employees were members of the local labor union. Back in 2007, she informed the agency's commissioner of her concerns. He responded, she said, by demoting her and slashing her salary by 20 percent.

The duties that she previously held, she said, were then given to white women who was considerably less qualified. One agency official reportedly told her to be grateful that she wasn't responsible for cleaning bathrooms. City officials later said that comment was taken out of context, adding that the agency has a history of promoting minority members, and the move toward this one employee was not indicative of a greater pattern.

With the settlement, the city maintains it has done nothing wrong. The plaintiff later told a reporter that while she disagreed with certain aspects of the settlement, she agreed to it overall.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission protects employees from being victims of retaliation if they have filed a discrimination complaint. Additionally, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who have engaged in certain protected actions. That includes things like complaining about workplace safety or health hazards, reporting security concerns, cooperating with investigators or reporting illegal or potentially illegal activity.

If you're not sure whether your action will garner you protection from New York City employment retaliation, you should contact a skilled employment attorney who can help guide you through the process.

Our New York City employment retaliation attorneys have worked these cases from both angles - the employers and the employees - so we have a unique insight into how to handle them and the likely strategy of the other side.

Great Neck Overtime Disputes Similar to Case Before SCOTUS

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:20:13 -0500

Great Neck employment litigation attorneys over the last year have noted an increasing number of overtime disputes. Great Neck employment litigation cases in this vein come from almost every industry and from employees of varying positions.

It appears we are far from alone in this. The federal Department of Labor is reporting a nearly 40 percent increase in the number of overtime wage lawsuits filed within the last year alone. The number of cases ballooned from nearly 8,800 in 2010 to 12,000 last year.

And now, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide on a case involving pharmaceutical company sales representatives who say they were wrongly denied overtime pay. The business, GlaxoSmithKline, contends the representatives weren't entitled to it because of their position within the company. The case is called Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., and justices will rule on whether salespeople are entitled to overtime and, more specifically, whether those selling pharmaceuticals are entitled to it.

The high court will hear the case this month, but a decision isn't likely to come until at least early summer.

In the meantime, there are other similar high-profile cases that have set somewhat of a precedent. There was Mario Batali, a chef with a television show who ended up settling with employees for more than $5 million over unpaid tips and overtime. And then there was Norvartis, another drug making company that shoveled over $99 million in a class action settlement stemming from overtime complaints made by its salespeople.

Both sides of the overtime issue point fingers at the other in saying they're to blame for the rising cases. The workers say employers are greedily trying to get around the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers, meanwhile, say the laws are somewhat archaic, confusing and difficult to apply to the modern work place. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Part of the increasing litigation has to do with the fact that employees these days are simply more aware of their rights and what actions they can take when those standards are violated.

On the other hand, the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in 1938. This was at a time when workplaces looked very different than they do today. The advent of technology has altered not only the way in which we do business, but the core of the issue remains that workers should be paid fair wages for the hours they work.

But as in almost any area of law, it's been subject to a great deal of interpretation over the years. That has resulted in conflicting case law that has led to some confusion - which is why The Supreme Court is stepping in, hopefully to clarify.

It's important no matter what side you are on to consult with an experienced Great Neck employment litigation attorney who can help you sort through the specific details of your case to determine which statutes may apply and explore all your options.

Great Neck Consumer Rights Attorneys: Beware Top 10 Scams

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:09:16 -0500

New York consumer rights have been trampled in recent years by a host of varying fraud schemes.

As our New York City Consumer Rights Attorneys understand it, the state's attorney general has now issued a list of the top 10 consumer fraud complaints from New Yorkers last year. The announcement came at the outset of the National Consumer Protection Week.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said that arming consumers with information on how to protect themselves is one of the most effective defenses to thwarting scams, adding that the ultimate crime scene of our century is unequivocally the internet. While he vowed his office would vigorously go after those who perpetuate fraud on the greater population, he underscored that giving consumers the knowledge of how to recognize a scam, and further to report it, will make a huge difference in curbing the reach of these crimes.

The complaints received by his office were broken down like this.

10. Telecommunications. In this category, which includes cellular service, pay-per-call and phone cards, the state's attorney general received about 1,020 complaints. With calling cards, start off with one card purchased for a small amount to test and make sure additional fees don't apply.

9. Mail order. These scams involved purchases that were made either from a catalog or online. In this category, the attorney general's office received about 1,065 complaints. Before you order anything through a catalog, make sure it is a reputable company with an actual service line and a real address.

8. Construction and home repair. These would generally involve home improvement projects in which the work either wasn't completed or was done very poorly. Complaints in this category numbered about 1,210. Shop around for estimates and other consumer reviews before agreeing to a contract.

7. Retail sales. These would involve any purchase of goods, which include gift cards, rent-to-own products or clothing. In this category, Schneiderman's office received about 1,220 complaints. Know the laws and company policy regarding gift cards before you buy.

6. Mortgage fraud. This has been big all across the country, and includes loan brokers and mortgage officers, as well as deceptive practices within the foreclosure process. Of those, the attorney general's office received about 1,600 complaints. Keep an eye out for companies that offer to delay your foreclosure for an upfront payment, as well as companies that claim to be working for the government.

5. Tenant and landlord issues. These would include failure to complete repairs, harassment or failing to release security deposits. The AG's office received about 2,700 of these complaints. Ask your landlord for proof that the building is up to code, and keep your own scrupulous records.

4. Consumer-related services. This would encompass anything from restaurant or catering services to tech repairs to security systems. Of these, there were about 3,700 complaints. Have a written contract in place before you allow the work to begin.

3. Vehicle issues. These would include anything relating to the purchase, lease, repair or rental of a motor vehicle. There were about 3,300 of these complaints. Make sure you research the state's vehicle leasing laws before you sign on the dotted line.

2. Credit. This involves a host of problems involving credit card billing to debt collection to debt settlement. Schneiderman's office received about 3,840 complaints regarding these issues. You should know that debt collectors are not allowed to abuse or harass you and they aren't allowed to offer you misleading information (which doesn't mean they never do).

1. Internet. The internet was No. 1 when it came to complaints filed with the AG's office - about 4,000 in all. These included a wide range of issues, from consumer fraud to spyware to privacy problems. The attorney general's office advised to always make sure websites are secure before you give any personal or financial information.

New York Education Law May Be Guideline For Law School Suit

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:12:44 -0500

In a New York education law case, the state's supreme court has issued a clear message to students: It's up to you - not your school - to determine your employment prospects.

Our New York education law attorneys understand that the case is one of a growing trend of similar suits filed across the country. Basically, students at colleges across the country - including New York Law School in lower Manhattan - say the schools misled them about what kind of future they would have once they graduated.

The plaintiffs, nine students from the New York Law School, said the school took great efforts to misconstrue the truth about their job prospects. They equated it to false advertising when school officials, in promoting the large number of recent graduates who had secured employment, failed to stipulate that many of those graduates were working only part-time or in fields that didn't even require a law degree.

Students pay premium prices to attend a prestigious law school (or any law school, really) on the expectation that they will find employment when they graduate. The students were collectively seeking $225 million in damages.

The Supreme Court, however, tossed their claim - while still expressing sympathy for the students - saying that those who are contemplating law school are generally a "sophisticated subset" of education buyers, who are fully able to weigh all their options before deciding to enroll. So basically, it's up to the student to do his or her research prior to accepting an offer to attend.

Still, the courts did say that they realized the students were entering one of the worst job markets in history, particularly for those with a legal degree.

An attorney for the New York Law School graduates said there will likely be an appeal.

This was just one case, however - a class action lawsuit that involves students from the Syracuse University College of Law, as well as 34 other schools, is still pending.

To some extent, students may expect some form of inflation when it comes to data released by the schools. The fact is, statistics can be skewed just about any way you can imagine - and still technically be accurate.

Universities in New York are governed by the state's Office of Higher Education and the state's education law, which begin in Chapter 1, Title 8 and Section 47 of New York State statutes. However, the regulations that fall within this scope generally involve how to start a college, how to implement and register a new program, how schools should handle off-campus instructions and what happens when ownership of a university changes.

The issue of whether the university is misleading its students, i.e., consumers, may fall under the Federal Trade Commission Act, which essentially says that all advertisements have to be true and non-deceptive, there must be proof to back up the claim and they must be fair.

New York Gender Discrimination Happens to Men Too

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:25:51 -0500

A weatherman in Los Angeles is suing CBS broadcasting for discrimination, saying the station only aims to hire young, attractive women to report on the weather.

New York City, like Los Angeles, has one of the largest media markets in the country, and as such, this case could have implications for future New York discrimination lawsuits involving similar circumstances.

Our New York City discrimination attorneys believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to pursue the career path they choose. Federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against someone on the basis of sex, age, race, religion and other factors.

But what about when you work an industry like television, where good looks - and certain looks - are practically a requirement of employment?

The fact of the matter is, federal law prohibits discrimination - period. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act spells this out clearly. These laws are enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Under this law, the discriminatory practices include just about every aspect of employment. This includes:

hiring and firing;
pay or classification;
transfer, layoff, promotion;
recruiting;
testing;
use of certain company equipment or facilities;
benefits;
retirement or disability;
training;

In this case, Kyle Hunter, an award-winning meteorologist, said he had applied for two weatherman jobs in the Los Angeles area - one at station KCBS and the other at KCAL. The first opening position was to replace longtime weatherman Johnny Mountain. But despite his superior resume, which showed Hunter to be a more qualified and experienced candidate, the job was given to Jackie Johnson, a younger female.

Then when Hunter applied for Johnson's old position, the job again went to a younger (i.e., less-experienced) female. Hunter said it is clear that gender and age played a role in the hiring decision, and that he was at a disadvantage because he is over the age of 40 and a male.

Yet, he is a weatherman with more than 20 years experience in various large markets, has a bachelor's degree in meteorology and is certified by the American Meteorological Society. The qualifications of the other candidates, according to his suit, did not come close.

This case is somewhat unusual in that we often hear about ageism and sexism in terms of males having the advantage. Women have long talked about that glass ceiling that for decades prevented them from advancing or even being accepted into certain fields.

Hunter's attorney, Gloria Allred, was quoted as saying that men are equally protected under anti-discrimination laws.

For its part, CBS has denied that sexism or ageism is at issue. In fact, it called Hunter's lawsuit "frivolous."

Our New York discrimination attorneys will be closely watching this case as it unfolds.

New York Employment Violations Alleged Against Fashion Designer

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:04:29 -0500

It's never fashionable to exploit your workers.

That's what one designer may soon learn in the course of a $50 million lawsuit alleging retaliation for New York City workers' compensation claims, as well as outright abuses and working conditions that have been compared to a sweatshop.

Our New York City workers' compensation attorneys have been following the heavy media coverage surrounding the case of fashion designer Alexander Wang. Some 30 current and former employees are suing Wang, alleging appalling work conditions, in which they were made to work 16-hour days in stifling, claustrophobic areas. What's more, some workers have said that when they suffered injuries, as a result of these conditions, they filed workers' compensation claims, and were subsequently fired.

These workers are suing for $50 million.

Wang, who reportedly earned $25 million last year, vehemently denies the allegations.

The New York Department of Labor specifically addresses issues within the apparel industry, which has been known historically to use "sweatshop" labor in order to cheaply and quickly manufacture clothing that they can sell for extremely low prices, thereby beating out the competition, or by selling them at high rates, thereby ensuring the profit margin will be sizable.

Sweatshops are identified by a myriad of different aspects, including: fire hazards, electrical hazards, safety hazards, health hazards, structural dangers, child labor, industrial homework, registration violations, tax irregularities and wage violations.

However, usually when we think of sweat shops, we think of overseas operations. That's because U.S. laws are stringent in terms of the working conditions it expects employers to offer. Laws in other countries aren't nearly as tough. Unfortunately, some companies have no qualms about putting profit above the rights of workers.

As the Department of Labor points out, when we do see sweatshops in the U.S., they are typically fly-by-night operations. They don't secure the proper permitting and they can quickly pick up and move across state lines if they need to in an attempt to elude the attention of authorities.

In 1996, the state of New York passed the "Hot Goods" law. This law essentially forbids the sale or distribution of clothing that has been made in sweatshops, which frequently cheat workers out of their money and pay less than the minimum wage requirements. Garment companies are registered under this law, and those that do not follow the standards can be tagged as "unlawfully manufactured."

One of the prime ways that sweatshops take advantage of workers is by paying them in cash and deducting wages that are illegal and undocumented. Here are some of the basic requirements of what garment workers must receive from their employers:

Overtime. If a worker has logged more than 40 hours, he or she must be given one and one-half times their hourly pay rate for every hour they work.

Children younger than 16 are not permitted to work in garment factories.

Factories have to follow state and federal law and fire codes concerning safety. During work hours, fire exits have to be accessible and unlocked.

All garment manufacturers have to register with the state's Department of Labor. They have to post that registration where employees can see it.

Employees cannot be required to take anything home to work on it there.

Settlement Doesn't Cure New York Foreclosure Ills

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:42:24 -0500

Illegal bank actions stemming from New York foreclosures are going to net the state a payout of $25 million. The money is the result of a $25 billion nationwide payout agreed upon by five major banks and attorneys general from 49 states, following widespread mortgage abuses and fraud that resulted in tens of thousands of illegal foreclosures across the country.

Our Great Neck foreclosure attorneys know this payout won't make up for the many families who have been affected by these deceptive practices.

News reports indicate that Bank of America, JPMorgan, Chase, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial will all pay $5.9 million each to the state. Citigroup will pay $1.25 million.

Essentially, the problem lies with the system the banks used to track mortgages. It's called the Mortgage Registration System - or MERS. It was created in the 1990s. The problem is that banks never kept up with paper documentation and ownership questions abound when it comes time to take foreclosure action. They used the MERS system to input data rather than obtaining court orders and going through the local clerk of courts.

While $25 million may sound significant, it really only amounts to about $2,000 for each person who was illegally foreclosed upon. That is barely enough to cover moving costs and a security deposit. It's also going to be spread out over a three-year period. In exchange for the settlement, the state has agreed to drop some of its legal claims against the named banks.

But many of those individuals who still have lawsuits pending against these financial institutions intend to continue to press forward with them.

This settlement also did not require any of the banks to admit wrongdoing. What that means for the future is that there is no guarantee these type of actions won't continue to occur.

In fact, there are some 70 million mortgage loans - including subprime loans - that are being tracked in the MERS system that have yet to be entered into the clerk of courts system. Plus, right now, there are an estimated 11 million people who still owe more on their homes than they are worth.

This was after housing prices plummeted by more than 30 percent since 2006, when large loans were often given to people who could never have afforded to repay them in the first place.

For homeowners, that means you need an aggressive attorney who is willing to fight for your best interests and who is familiar with these type of cases and the tactics regularly employed by banks to protect their bottom dollar.

President Barack Obama has announced the implementation of a high-level group of officials who will be charged with organizing and investigating the ongoing complaints regarding abusive and reckless home loans, and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been chosen to help lead the group. But as bureaucracies go, it could take years to sort through each complaint.

If you are facing a foreclosure in Great Neck, you need someone who will work to get you effective and timely results.

Racial Discrimination at FDNY Results in Heavy Fines, Department Changes

Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:58:14 -0500

Racial discrimination in New York among the firefighting ranks could cost the city upwards of $130 million.

Our New York City labor and employment lawyers understand that this entire affair has impacted a fine institution, lauded for its many sacrifices and accomplishments. But discrimination in any form is unacceptable, and it's especially disheartening when it is allowed to persist at any level of an organization.

For decades, there had been whispers and knowing nods that there was racial discrimination at the New York Fire Department. A simple look at the demographics reveals the startling truth: The department is more than 90 percent white, 6 percent Hispanic and 3 percent black - hardly reflective of the diverse makeup of New York City.

However, the situation didn't come to a head until 2007, when the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit, claiming that the entrance exam discriminated against racial minorities.

In 2009, a federal judge in Brooklyn agreed with that take, ruling that whites scored consistently higher on the tests than minorities. He ruled the oversight wasn't intentional, but rather the result of a test structure that was inherently more favorable to whites. Test scores were based on reading and comprehension skills, rather than actual firefighting skills. What's more, there was a culture of nepotism within the department. Because the department had been made up largely of white firefighters to begin with, their family and friends were consistently recommended and supported throughout the application process, further perpetuating the lack of diversity.

It was ordered that a new exam would have to be developed, with the help of a third-party, equal opportunity consultant.

Now, the courts are taking this message a step further. The city is going to have to shell out almost $130 million in back wages to minority applicants who weren't hired after taking the department's entrance exam. That payout is going to be split up among some 2,200 applicants who were turned down between 1999 and 2002. The applicants' salary between when they applied and now is going to be factored into the settlement. So someone who made less is going to get more.

Plus, the department needs to hire nearly 300 black and Latino applicants.

A spokesman for the Vulcan Society, which is a fraternity of black firefighters, said that the decision marked a great victory for both the department - which will benefit from the diversity - and those who had previously been excluded - who will benefit from the renewed opportunity.

At this point, nearly 62,000 individuals have registered to take the new exam this week. That is three times the amount of any year of previous applicants.

While the city has defended its hiring practices, saying that the number of minorities has tripled in the last decade, clearly, it hasn't been enough.

This case just goes to show that discrimination in the workplace is costly - not only in terms of possible financial penalties, but in terms of the human toll as well.

Need for New York Estate Planning Highlighted in Celeb Family Dispute

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:06:52 -0500

A dispute involving the family of the late Gil Scott-Heron, a Grammy award-winning musician and poet, entails numerous allegations of illegal actions in an effort to seize control of his multimillion dollar estate.

While most family estate disputes in Great Neck don't involve famous singer-songwriters, bitter accusations can quickly dissolve relationships, as well as any chance of peacefully resolving the issues at hand. This is why it is important to have a New York family law attorney at your side.

In this case, reports the New York Daily News, the 62-year-old Scott-Heron, perhaps most famous for the tune "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," died last year. He had four children, who have begun battling out the details of his estate in court.

The singer's only son is now accusing his half-sister, as well as her mother and grandmother, of stealing an estimated $250,000 from business accounts belonging to his father. As the temporary executive of the estate, Scot-Heron's son has said that such withdrawals of the account were not authorized, and therefore illegal.

He accused his half-sister of forging his father's signature in order to take the money. He also said his half-sister's grandmother broke the law to use her documented power of attorney to take the money. This all reportedly happened just weeks before he was named as administrator of the estate.

Additionally, he says his father's former mother-in-law stole another $60,000 from his father's checking account. He is suing not only for the money lost, but another $2 million in damages.

The allegations get stranger from there. In one accusation, Scott-Heron's son also alleges the women also seized his father's body from the hospital, and then refused to allow him to say a few public words at the funeral.

Scott-Heron's former mother-in-law denies each of the claims, saying she "wouldn't be that dumb."

Whether any of this is true should be sorted out in court.

We understand that often in cases of disputes among family, the issue isn't really about the money. It becomes a principal of the matter, and a battle between what is right and wrong.

This case also underscores the need for people to plan their estates well in advance of their passing. We understand you never know what can happen from one day to the next, so it is very important to be prepared. An experienced family estate attorney can help you accomplish this.

It's important to consider the following issues:

1. Do you have a will and a trust? Have you designated a durable power of attorney and health care power of attorney? That latter two are important for making financial and health care decisions on your behalf if you are ever incapacitated. The former deals with what will happen to your assets after you die. A trust, in particular, is important if you have minor children who will need to be looked after.

2. Even if you do have these documents, they may not be worth much if they are outdated. Make sure that these documents are updated to reflect your current marital status, as well as any children or grandchildren you may have had since the document was created.

3.You need to make sure that beneficiaries are properly designated on any property you may own, as well as any life insurance or retirement accounts. It is possible for an ex-spouse or older parent to receive these benefits - as opposed to the current spouse and children - if these documents are not properly prepared and updated.