Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.2024-03-28T15:00:09Zhttps://www.karpf-law.com/feed/atom/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/sites/1602656/2020/05/cropped-fav-32x32.pngOn Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=470092021-04-21T19:23:50Z2021-04-21T19:23:30ZThe WARN Act is particularly helpful in making sure that employees know about a business shutting down. If the business is sold or one of its parts is transferred to another party, then the employer does need to let their employees know with 60 days’ notice.
What can employees do if they aren’t give 60 days of notice about a layoff or job loss?
If the employer violates the WARN Act, then it is possible to seek compensation from them. This compensation would include back pay and benefits that should have been earned during the violation period.
The WARN Act is there to help employees and their families prepare if they’ll be losing their job or seeing a major change in income. Failing to provide employees with notice is unacceptable in circumstances mentioned above. The act applies to all companies that have over 100 active full-time employees, whether they are for or not-for-profit, private or public.
If you lose your job unexpectedly in a situation where the WARN Act should have been implemented, it may be time to look into your legal options.]]>On Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=470022021-02-16T21:35:35Z2021-02-16T21:35:30ZColleagues shouldn't be making comments about your appearance
Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with asking about a co-worker's new haircut or where your office friend got a particular pair of designer shoes. However, it is inappropriate to make comments about a person's physical appearance or how it compares to other people within the firm. If you hear someone making unwanted remarks about your body, you may be able to justify a sexual harassment claim. An employment law attorney may be able to help you seek to hold another individual responsible for their actions.
Were you propositioned?
If your boss repeatedly asks you out on dates, to perform sexual acts or to engage in other questionable activities, you may be a victim of sexual harassment. It's important to note that this may be true regardless of your respective genders.
You could be an indirect victim of harassment
Let's say that you receive an email attachment containing a picture of someone else's naked body. Even though you weren't being directly targeted for harassment, whoever committed those acts may still be guilty of violating workplace policies. The same may be true if you overheard a supervisor ranking employees based on how attractive they are or by other subjective measures. In the event that you're terminated because of an unwillingness to tolerate hostile work conditions, an attorney might help you get your job back.]]>On Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=470002020-10-30T17:05:48Z2020-10-30T17:05:44ZFMLA protections
The FMLA is specific regarding the protections that it provides to workers. These protections include the following:
• Employers are not allowed to interfere or deny any attempts of an employee to exercise the FMLA rights afforded to them.
• Employers are not permitted to show any form of discrimination or retaliation against an employee who chooses to exercise their FMLA rights.
• Employers are prohibited from delivering any type of punishment to an employee who complains about a company's FMLA compliance.
• Employees are prevented from FMLA retaliation against employees who take formal action to settle an FMLA dispute with the company for which they work.
FMLA coverage
The Family and Medical Leave Act applies to all public agencies, secondary and elementary schools operated both publicly and privately, and any company that employs 50 or more workers. These employees are allowed 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually for any of the following reasons:
• The birth of a child
• Adoption of a child
• Providing care for an immediate family member suffering from a serious injury
• The employee suffers from a serious health condition
FMLA enforcement
The responsibility for enforcing FMLA regulations falls to the Wage and Hour Division. The division investigates employee complaints and works with both sides of the dispute to resolve the problem. When a resolution is not possible, the Department of Labor may apply pressure to the employer through legal action.
Workers in America enjoy the right to take some time away from work to address family medical issues. Individuals who become involved in a dispute with their employer regarding this right may find an easier path to a solution by speaking with an employment law attorney.]]>On Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=466952020-09-02T14:12:13Z2020-08-04T21:32:03ZCharacteristics attributed to race
Title VII protects against the use of a fixed trait commonly associated with a racial group, like the color of skin or hair as well as facial features, to deny employment opportunities to an individual. Not all members of a particular racial group need to share a trait for this Title VII protection to apply.
Title VII also addresses discrimination based on a condition that is specific to a particular race. One example includes a policy that would exclude employees with sickle cell anemia. This policy would qualify as Title VII discrimination due to the fact that sickle cell occurs predominantly within the African American community.
All Americans should enjoy the same levels of protection against discrimination based on age, race, sex or other individual characteristics while on the job or in search of an employment opportunity. Individuals who feel that they have been denied a work opportunity as a result of discrimination may be able to find a remedy for the problem through consultation with an experienced employment law attorney.]]>On Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=462082020-05-26T15:19:42Z2020-05-08T21:45:19ZIs your claim about a violation of federal law?
Many employment law concerns are violations of federal laws, and the federal law has different statutes of limitations depending on the violation:
Anti-discrimination laws—Many of these acts, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) have a 180-day limitation. In some cases, your jurisdiction may extend the deadline to 300 days.
Family Medical Leave Act—If your employer has violated your right to medical leave, you have 2 years to file a complaint.
Fair Labor Standards Act—If your employer has committed a wage or hour violation, you will have 2 years to file for most violations and up to 3 years if the violation was “willful.”
Federal employees have a tighter deadline, however. Their complaints must be filed within 45 days of the initial violation.
Is your claim about a violation of New York state law?
If your employer has violated a New York state law, the statute of limitations depends on the specific law that was violated. Wage, hour and retaliation claims can be made within 6 years. If you have experienced an issue of discrimination, you have 3 years to file a claim in New York state.
Is your claim about a violation of New Jersey state law?
If your employer has violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) or the state Family Leave Act (FLA), you generally have 180 days to file a verified complaint with the state government.
Is your claim about a violation of Pennsylvania state law?
For issues of discrimination in Pennsylvania, you can file within 180 days of the most recent incident.
Because of the many laws that govern your employer, it is important to speak to an experienced employment law attorney after you have experienced discrimination, wage violations or other misconduct. They can ensure that you file your claim before time runs out.]]>On Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=465502020-05-26T18:18:51Z2020-01-11T19:17:53ZParties to a contract are entitled to performance of the contract without interference from others. Interference with a contract can lead to claims of tortious interference with performance of the contract or tortious interference with prospective contractual relations.
Tortious interference with the performance of contracts is defined in the Section 766 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts:
One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to a liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract.
To prove a claim of torturous interference with the performance of a contract, the plaintiff must show that the defendant caused a third party not to perform a contract with plaintiff. It must be shown that defendant intentionally caused the lack of performance and did so improperly.
Tortious interference with prospective or anticipated contractual relations is defined in Section 766B of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as: "[I]nducing or otherwise causing a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or (b) preventing the other from acquiring or continuing the relation."
For a claim of tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant caused a third party not to enter into a contractual relationship with the plaintiff or prevented the plaintiff from entering into their relationship. The plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was intentional and improper.
Determining whether a defendant's conduct was improper is a critical issue in actions involving claims of tortious interference with performance of a contract or tortious interference with prospective contractual relations. In determining that improper conduct, the courts normally will keep in mind that an interest of the plaintiff in an existing contract may merit more protection than a less easily defined interest in a prospective or anticipated contract.
Seven factors listed in Section 767 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts are used to determine improper conduct of the defendant:
The nature of the defendant's conduct.
Defendant's motive.
The interests of plaintiff with which defendant's conduct interferes.
The interests which defendant seeks to advance.
The social interests in balancing defendant's freedom to act against the contractual interests of plaintiff.
The "proximity or remoteness" of defendant's conduct relative to the interference claimed by plaintiff.
The relations between plaintiff and defendant.
A claim of tortious interference is more difficult to prove when the claim is made against a competitor. In order to protect competition, intentional interference with a prospective contractual relationship will not be considered improper if the relation involves competition between the defendant and the plaintiff, the defendant does not use "wrongful means," and the defendant is not restraining trade but is seeking to compete with the plaintiff.]]>On Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=465492020-05-26T18:20:09Z2020-01-10T19:16:24ZOSHA has set standards in four categories of business:
General industry;
Construction;
Maritime; and
Agriculture.
Within each of these categories, standards are set for particular activities or types of equipment. For example, standards for general industry include topics such as exit routes and machine handling and standards for maritime include topics such as gangways and hatches.
Three categories of standards apply across all industries:
Access to medical and exposure records;
Personal protective equipment; and
Hazard communication.
Regarding records, standards provide that employers must give their employees access to employer-maintained medical records and records of exposure to substances that are considered toxic.
Personal protective equipment standards set forth equipment that must be provided without cost to employees to guard their health and safety while working. Such equipment varies according to industry and occupation and includes items such as helmets, respirators, and sight and hearing protectors.
The hazard communication standard requires evaluation by manufacturers and importers of any potential hazards of their products and notification to employers (who in turn are responsible for training employees) as to such hazards through a material safety data sheet, commonly referred to as an MSDS.
In addition to setting standards, OSHA also issues regulations concerning record keeping, reporting, and posting. Most employers with more than ten employees in businesses not considered low-hazard (such as office or retail work) are required to maintain an injury and illness log and individual incident reports. All employers subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, including those with ten or fewer employees, must report within eight hours to OSHA concerning any accident that results in an employee fatality or hospitalization of three or more employees.]]>On Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=465312020-05-26T18:20:27Z2020-01-05T16:58:38ZDiscrimination Defined
The EEOC guidelines state, "Procedure having adverse impact constitutes discrimination unless justified." They go on to say that any procedure used in the selection process that has an adverse impact on the members of any race or sex will be considered discriminatory unless the procedure is otherwise validated (see "validation" below). Similarly, employers are instructed that where two or more procedures serve an employer's legitimate interest in selecting employees, the employer should use the procedure that has the lesser adverse impact on members of a particular sex or race.
Information on Impact
Pursuant to the guidelines, employers are to create and retain for inspection by the EEOC information disclosing the impact that their selection procedures, like screening tests, have upon the sexes and upon persons of different races. Generally, if this information discloses that the overall selection process does not have an adverse impact on any category of applicants, the EEOC does not require the employer to evaluate each individual component of the process. If, however, the information reveals that the overall selection process does have an adverse impact, the employer must evaluate the individual components.
Validation
When an impact study reveals that an employment selection procedure has an adverse impact on members of a particular sex or race, the employer must create and maintain documentation of validation studies for each individual component of the process that is found to have an adverse impact.
The following types of evidence are acceptable to meet this requirement:
Documentation showing criterion-related validity of the selection procedure
Documentation showing content validity of the selection procedure
Documentation showing construct validity of the selection procedure
Documentation from other studies showing validity of the selection procedure
Documentation showing why a validity study cannot or need not be performed and why continued use of the procedure is consistent with the law
The guidelines state that while not all selection procedures have to be validated, formal or scored procedures that have an adverse impact should be validated if technically feasible. If validation is not possible, the procedure having the adverse impact should be eliminated. Where informal or non-scored procedures have an adverse impact, the employer should either eliminate the procedure having the adverse impact or convert the process to a more formal one that can be validated.]]>On Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=465302020-05-26T15:58:10Z2020-01-04T16:57:30ZDespite complex tax schedules and funding strategies, there are times when a state's unemployment insurance fund will be insufficient to cover its costs. Typically, this happens during a prolonged recession, when claims for benefits are high and contributions to the fund diminish. Although most states rely on some type of solvency provision to prevent this from occurring, such measures are not always enough.
When a state does find itself in the position of insufficient funds, it may do one of two things. The first and most common course of action is to borrow money from the United States Treasury. The second (more recent and less common) option is for a state to issue bonds. Both methods of securing revenue have their strengths and weaknesses.
Treasury Loans
The Social Security Act allows states to borrow funds as needed to maintain their unemployment insurance programs. These loans come in the form of advances and do not require the states to pay interest if the funds are repaid within a specific period of time. If repayment is not completed within the specified timeframe, the state is put onto a repayment plan entailing interest and minimum required payments. If the state is unable to make those payments, the federal government has the option of recouping its money through special taxes added to employers' unemployment insurance taxes.
For short-term borrowing needs, treasury loans can be ideal. They offer an instant flow of cash. At the same time, they give states the ability to repay the debt without any additional cost. For longer-term solutions, however, states may turn elsewhere.
State Bonds
Rather than borrowing from the treasury, a state may choose to solve its unemployment funding crisis through the issue of state bonds. Here, the state raises money by selling bonds that will be paid with interest at a later date. The primary motivation for using bonds is a reduction in interest costs.
Bonds work for states because they are free from federal income tax. Additionally, the repayment of bonds typically takes place over a much greater time period than a loan repayment. It should be kept in mind, however, that bonds always result in the accumulation of interest (whereas treasury loans may be entirely interest free if repaid on time). For a state with a short-term financing problem, the use of bonds may generate greater costs in the long run.
Combined Strategies
Occasionally, a state will pursue a combination of treasury loans and bonds. As with investment portfolios, utilizing a diversity of borrowing strategies can maximize financial flexibility. At the same time, capitalizing on low and no interest borrowing opportunities can minimize the accumulation of interest.
An example of this would be a state that borrows from the treasury on a short-term basis and issues bonds for the longer term. The loans offer an instant flow of resources, while the money obtained from the sale of bonds can be used to pay off those loans before they accumulate interest. A state may do this in a cyclical fashion and maintain its unemployment benefits in a cost-effective way.]]>On Behalf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.https://www.karpf-law.com/?p=465292020-05-26T15:57:07Z2020-01-03T16:56:26ZNormally, tort law requires the party causing the injury to compensate the injured party with money. The doctrine of vicarious liability, however, may hold a party other than the one actually causing the injury financially responsible for the harm. Several policy arguments exist for the imposition of vicarious liability on seemingly innocent parties.
The entity in the best position to prevent the harm should bear its responsibility;
An entity benefiting from an act should be required to pay when that act results in an injury; an
The entity most financially able to pay for injuries that are, at least, indirectly related to them should bear those losses.
Respondeat Superior
For these reasons, vicarious liability is often imposed on employers for the actions of their employees. In this context, vicarious liability is called respondeat superior. Under the respondeat superior doctrine, employers are responsible for injuries caused by their employees, provided that the injury occurs while the employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment.
In the Scope of Employment
Generally, an employee acts within the scope of his or her employment when he or she acts under the authority of the employer or for the benefit of the employer. If the employee is temporarily deviating from the employer's work for a personal reason, the employee is still acting within the scope of his or her employment, so long as the diversion is fairly minor.
Examples:
In the scope of employment: An employee on a trip for his employer stops at a convenience store for a soda.
Not within the scope of employment: An employee making in-town sales calls for his employer drives to another city to meet a friend for lunch.
An employee is usually not acting within the scope of employment when he or she intentionally hurts another person. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule. If an employer has authorized the use of force or if the employee is furthering the business of the employer by committing the intentional harm, the employee will likely be found to have acted within the scope of his or her employment.
Examples:
Not acting within the scope of employment: A restaurant employee punches her former husband while he is eating in the establishment.
Acting within the scope of employment: A "bouncer" bruises a nightclub customer while forcibly removing him after a fight.