No Loss of Retirement for Off-duty Illegal Act

A former corrections officer arrested for distribution a pain killer should not be denied a disability retirement because of this off-duty wrongdoing, as per the Appellate Court in Coughlin v Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System.  Here, the scope of the wrongdoing was limited—two tablets to a private individual in a private car in a commercial parking lot.  The connection of this off-duty illegal act to the pension requirements was improper.

Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

 

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: EMP--

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: employment law--

--Tagged under: empl--

--Tagged under: employment claim--

--Tagged under: empl--

--Tagged under: employment issue--

--Tagged under: retirement--

--Tagged under: labor--

--Tagged under: labor law--

--Tagged under: illegal act--

--Tagged under: criminal act--

--Tagged under: off duty actions--

Conviction Expungement Does Not Remove Bar to Public Employment

In the Matter of the Expungement Petition of D.H., decided on 10/27/10 by the NJ Supreme Court, it was held that D.H. met the criteria for expungement pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 but that the forfeiture of public employment statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2, was separate and forfeiture is not automatically revoked with the expungement. D.H. was a public official who pleaded guilty to a disorderly persons offense that directly involved or touched the official’s public office.  D.H. had no criminal history prior to the incident in question, nor was she involved with the law after the incident in question.  D.H. wanted her record expunged and she wanted to be eligible for public office again.  The Supreme Court felt that her record should be expunged but that the forfeiture statute still applied to D.H.

Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

 Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: employment law--

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: expungment--

--Tagged under: public office forfeiture--

--Tagged under: disorderly persons offense--

Residency requirement may not be valid

The residency requirement of many municipalities may not be valid.  If the residency requirement causes a disparate impact on applicants, the municipality must be able to show business necessity or else the requirement will not be upheld.  See NAACP v North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue (2010).

Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

 

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: residency--

--Tagged under: residency requirement--

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: applicant--

--Tagged under: business necessity--

--Tagged under: disparate impact--

WHAT DOES AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT MEAN?

An arbitration clause in an employment agreement means that any employment dispute must be handled through arbitration rather the courts.  Case law has upheld such clauses as valid and binding. Most arbitrations are handled by one arbitrator, though there can be a panel of arbitrators, depending on the language in the arbitration clause.  The source of the arbitrators, such as American Arbitration Association, is usually spelled out in the arbitration clause.  Under AAA rules, both parties have to pay an initial fee for a list of arbitrators to be provided to the parties.

Arbitration is generally less formal and costly than the court process.  However, an arbitrator’s decision is binding, with very rare exceptions.  Parties are usually represented by attorneys in arbitration, but can choose to represent themselves.

Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

 

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: ar--

--Tagged under: arbitration--

--Tagged under: arbitration clause--

--Tagged under: binding--

--Tagged under: emp--

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: employment agreement--

--Tagged under: business law--

YOU DON’T GET BOTH

The Appellate Court has ruled that an individual cannot get both disability benefits and workers’ compensation benefits for the same time period.  The employee must pay back the disability benefits received for the duplicate period.  See Ottens v Board of Review, July 2010.

Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

 

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: disability benefits--

--Tagged under: workers' compensation benefits--

--Tagged under: pay back benefits--

--Tagged under: reimburse disability benefits--

--Tagged under: reimburse benefits--

--Tagged under: employee--

--Tagged under: employment--

WIN SOME, LOSE SOME IN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

If you are late on filing an appeal without “good cause,”  you will not succeed in the appeal of your unemployment compensation denial.  The Appellate Court will not consider the merits of your appeal with a late filing, as per the Levy v Board of Review decision in July 2010.

On the other hand, if a teacher substitutes for another teacher’s sick leave, then the substitute teacher is eligible for unemployment benefits; the substitute teacher is not to be treated like a 10 month employee who is not eligible for unemployment.  See Crowley v Board of Review, July 2010.

Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

 

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: unemployment--

--Tagged under: unemployment compensation--

--Tagged under: filing late--

--Tagged under: late filing--

--Tagged under: unemployment denial--

--Tagged under: subtitute teacher--

--Tagged under: sick leave--

--Tagged under: levy v board of review--

--Tagged under: crowley v board of review--

--Tagged under: 10 month employee--

FMLA Leave: an Employee’s Word Counts!

In a recent decision, the United States 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that in determining whether an employee was sufficiently incapacitated to warrant protecting her under the Federal Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the employee’s own word as to her illness was enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact. In Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Physicians, the 3rd Circuit held that an employee who had a doctor’s certification of illness for part of her absence, and her own testimony that she was not well enough to return to work for the remainder of her absence, was protected from retaliation under the FMLA.

FMLA provides that for employers of 50 persons or more, employees are entitled to up to 12 work-weeks per year of unpaid leave to care for an ill family member or for themselves when they are ill. Significantly, FMLA provides that employees cannot be fired, disciplined or have adverse action taken against them due to taking FMLA leave. In Scharr the plaintiff had a doctor’s note for two days of leave and stayed home a third day without any medical documentation because she did not feel she was yet well enough to return to work. The 3rd Circuit reversed the District Court and held that lay testimony, in other words the employee’s own testimony as to his or her medical condition, in combination with medical testimony, could establish that the illness was serious enough to justify the leave. The Court declined to go as far as have the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, which find that lay testimony may be sufficient all by itself to establish the seriousness of the illness for FMLA purposes.

In practical terms, this means that the burden on employees of establishing the need for FMLA leave has been lowered in New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania. Significantly, all the U.S. Circuits that have dealt with this question have allowed lay testimony, at least in combination with medical testimony: the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th Circuits. This trend could make it easier for employees with partial, periodic disabilities to take the leave they need without a heavy burden of medical certification.

C. Megan Oltman

--Tagged under: 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals--

--Tagged under: FMLA--

--Tagged under: Family Medical Leave Act--

--Tagged under: United States Court of Appeals--

--Tagged under: disability--

--Tagged under: employ--

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: employment law--

--Tagged under: labor law--

COBRA subsidy if you or your spouse is laid off

The following article contains a lot of useful information on the COBRA subsidy:

 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the financial stimulus law signed by President Barack Obama on Feb. 17, 2009, includes significant changes to the COBRA continuation coverage rules as well as state programs providing comparable continuation coverage (including the NJ State Continuation Plan). 

 

Among many other provisions designed to encourage economic recovery, Title III of ARRA expands the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) Continuation Coverage to provide a 65 percent federal subsidy toward an eligible worker’s COBRA premium for up to 9 months.  The provisions in ARRA providing this subsidy are effective as of the date of the President’s signing.  A brief summary of the newly enacted COBRA subsidy follows.

 

What Is The COBRA Subsidy?
 
Eligible workers will receive a 65 percent subsidy toward their COBRA continuation premium for up to 9 months.  The Treasury Department will administer the subsidy, providing employers or health plans, if they administer COBRA benefits, with a credit against payroll taxes for the cost of the subsidy.  The subsidy would terminate the date the individual becomes eligible for any new employer-sponsored health care coverage or Medicare coverage.

 

For What Coverage Is The Subsidy Available?
 
The federal subsidy is available for COBRA continuation coverage and for state programs providing comparable continuation coverage.  The subsidy is not available for coverage under a health flexible spending arrangement.

 

Who Is Eligible For The COBRA Subsidy?

 

Individuals who have been involuntarily terminated from employment between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 and who have annual incomes of less than $125,000 (single) or $250,000 (joint filers) for the taxable year in which the subsidy is received (i.e., either 2009 or 2010) are eligible for the COBRA premium assistance, along with their families.  If the premium subsidy is provided to an individual whose income exceeds $145,000 (single) or $290,000 (joint), then the amount of the premium subsidy for all months during the taxable year must be repaid.  For taxpayers with income between $125,000 and $145,000 (or $250,000 and $290,000 for joint filers), the amount of the premium subsidy for the taxable year that must be repaid is reduced proportionately.

 

Do Any Special Enrollment Rights Exist?
 
Qualified individuals who initially decline COBRA coverage prior to the enactment of ARRA would be given an additional 60 days after they receive notice of the special election period to elect to receive the subsidy.  The election period begins on the date of the enactment of ARRA.  The special election opportunity is also available to a qualified beneficiary who elected COBRA coverage but who is no longer enrolled on the date of enactment, for example, because the beneficiary was unable to continue paying the premium.  

Federal COBRA law provides that a group health plan must allow an eligible individual to choose to continue with the coverage in which the individual is enrolled as of the qualifying event.  However, ARRA allows group health plans to provide a special enrollment right to allow eligible individuals to elect different coverage under the plan in electing COBRA continuation coverage.  Further, even though the premium subsidy is only for 9 months, the different coverage elected must generally be permitted to be continued for the applicable required period (generally 18 months or 36 months, absent a COBRA terminating event).
 
What Are The Notice Requirements? 
 
COBRA notices must include information on the availability of the premium assistance and must be provided to all individuals who terminated employment during the applicable time period, not just to individuals who were involuntarily terminated.  The Department of Labor has 30 days after the enactment of ARRA to issue model notices.
 
How Is The Subsidy Administered?
 
The subsidy is generally administered as a reimbursement.  The entity to which premiums are payable will be reimbursed by the amount of the premium for COBRA coverage that is not paid by an eligible individual on account of their 65 percent premium reduction.  An entity is not eligible for subsidy reimbursement, however, until it has received the reduced premium payment from the eligible individual.  The entity to whom the federal reimbursement is payable is either (1) the multiemployer group health plan, (2) the employer maintaining the group health plan subject to federal COBRA, or (3) the insurer providing coverage under an insured plan. 
 
The entity that is eligible for reimbursement may elect to offset its payroll taxes for purposes of reimbursement.  To the extent that such entity has liability for income tax withholding from wages or FICA taxes with respect to its employees, the entity is reimbursed by treating the amount that is reimbursable to the entity as a credit against its liability for these payroll taxes.  That is, the credit for the reimbursement is treated as a payment of payroll taxes.  Any reimbursement for an amount in excess of the payroll taxes owed is treated in the same manner as a tax refund.  Entities wishing to claim reimbursements will be required to file certain reports, including an attestation of the involuntary termination of employment of each covered employee for which reimbursement of premiums is claimed.
 
What Is The Effective Date Of The COBRA Subsidy?
 
These provisions are effective for periods of coverage beginning after the date of the enactment of ARRA.  For group health plans using calendar months as the period of coverage, the subsidy applies beginning March 1, 2009.  Additionally, eligible individuals who pay 100 percent of the premium required for COBRA for any month during the first 60-day coverage period after enactment will be reimbursed.
 
Is The Subsidy Retroactive?
 
Although the subsidy is available to employees who were terminated starting September 1, 2008, the subsidy itself is not retroactive.  It will apply only to periods of coverage beginning on or after March 1, 2009.
 
Where Can I Get More Information?

 

For a copy of the new law, ARRA, see:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00001:

 Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: ARRA--

--Tagged under: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--

--Tagged under: COBRA--

--Tagged under: COBRA and lay off--

--Tagged under: COBRA subsidy--

--Tagged under: federal health subsidiy--

--Tagged under: health coverage subsidy--

--Tagged under: Employment--

--Tagged under: employment law--

Employment clients with Strich Law Firm PC

In the past few months, we have experienced an upsurge of potential employment clients here at Strich Law Firm, P.C. The trend appears to be tied to the larger economic crisis, and the resultant corporate reorganizations, layoffs, and even bankruptcies.

Prior to booking a potential employment client for a consultation, we usually attempt to gain some initial information over the phone in order to assess whether the potential client has a colorable claim.  When asked what they believe was the true reason for their termination, an overwhelming number of callers indicate that it was attributable to personality conflicts with a supervisor or co-worker. While many potential clients understand that New Jersey is essentially an at-will employment state, others have extreme difficulty comprehending the fact that you can be fired for almost any reason, save unlawful discrimination or breach of contract.  If the opposite were true, we’d probably all be millionaires.

A common thread amongst almost all potential employment clients, however, is their emotionality at having lost a job under circumstances that they deem less than fair, regardless of whether the termination was legally appropriate.  My experience in practicing plaintiff’s employment law for the past couple of years has confirmed my long-held belief that the great bulk of American workers do not view their jobs as mere conduits for the issuance of paychecks.  Rather, the performance of one’s duties is a very personal endeavor.  It is time and energy invested into an enterprise – similar to a marriage – from which one hopes to reap returns in the form of professional advancement, increases in compensation, and personal satisfaction.  The investment often requires employees to miss dinner, quality time with a spouse or partner, and even some of their children’s extracurricular activities.

Thus, when an employee learns, with little to no advance notice, that his employment is being involuntarily terminated under suspicious circumstances, the feeling of personal anguish can be overwhelming.  This is especially true for longtime employees who have dedicated a greater portion of their life towards the success of their employer. They may think, why was I chosen for the layoff, and not so and so?  Did I do something wrong? If there was a problem, why wasn’t it brought to my attention so I could fix it? Will my former employer give me a good recommendation? Where do I go from here? The loss can be a huge blow to one’s self-esteem, not to mention the immediate financial concerns of making the mortgage payments and obtaining alternate health insurance coverage.

Throughout my tenure at Strich Law Firm, I have come to the conclusion that being a Plaintiff’s employment lawyer requires the donning of two hats.  The first and most important role is to act as an aggressive advocate for the client’s rights, whether the client is seeking reinstatement, additional severance pay, or compensation for lost wages on account of an unlawful discharge.  The second role is to counsel the client through the transition into a new chapter of his or her life.  This entails assisting clients in applying for unemployment benefits, referring them to employment agencies, and simply just acting as a sounding board for them as they begin to restructure their lives.

While many practitioners might dismiss the latter role as sentimental hogwash, it is this aspect of my job that I find truly rewarding.  Here at Strich Law Firm, the clients we work with are part and parcel of our own personal investment.  We, like you, understand that business is not just business – it’s personal.

Amy E. Stutzke, Esq.

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: employment law--

--Tagged under: employment claim--

--Tagged under: employment client--

--Tagged under: termination reason--

--Tagged under: termination--

--Tagged under: personality conflict--

--Tagged under: at will employment--

--Tagged under: breach of contract--

--Tagged under: unlawful discrimination--

--Tagged under: layoff--

--Tagged under: health insurance coverage--

--Tagged under: aggressive advocate--

--Tagged under: reinstatement--

--Tagged under: severance pay--

--Tagged under: compensation for lost wages--

--Tagged under: unemployment benefits--

Theme created by: Roy David Farber and Hunson. Powered By: Tumblr...
1 of 1