Long Island Employment Law BlogThe First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects, among other rights, the freedom of speech. An unsettled area of employment law in New York has been the question of how much protection does the First Amendment provide to public sector employees like police officers. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses a recent case involving a police officer’s union activity and First Amendment retaliation. Continue reading
Articles Posted in blog
Employment lawyer Weinick to Teach Skills Class
For the fourth consecutive year, Long Island employment lawyer Matt Weinick has been asked to return to Hofstra Law School to teach the Foundational Lawyering Skills class. Weinick will be designated as a Special Instructor to teach second year law students, commonly referred to as “2L’s.”
According to Hofstra Law School’s website, the Foundational Lawyering Skills class is a required course for all second year students. It teaches “core lawyering skills” such as litigation and transactional lawyering. Instructors assess the students’ competency in those skills. The class is comprised of a lecture and “break-out classes.” Weinick will be instructing one section of the break-out class on Tuesday afternoons.
The fall 2018 semester will be the fourth year in a row Weinick has participated as an instructor in the Foundational Lawyering Skills class program. Last year Weinick’s students commented that he was “pleasant,” “professional,” gave “thoughtful feedback,” “He was good, seemed effective,” and he was “Great, informative, knew the material, gave effective comments.”
Employment Lawyer Weinick Admitted to Supreme Court
At the April 30, 2018 session of the Court, Long Island employment lawyer Matthew Weinick was admitted to the United States Supreme Court. His admission gives Weinick the privilege of representing clients in appeals before the nation’s highest court.
At the April 30, 2018 Supreme Court session, Weinick joined a group of lawyers from Hofstra Law School for a group swearing in ceremony at the court. Making the day all the more special, the group included Hofstra’s dean and former Chief Administrative Judge of New York, A. Gail Prudenti. Promptly at 10:00a.m., the Court was called to order and the Chief Justice and Associate Judges of the Supreme Court took the bench. Hofstra Professor J. Scott Colesanti read the motion to admit Weinick and the rest of the Hofstra group. Chief Justice John Roberts granted the motion. Before the conclusion of the session, the Clerk of the Court Scott S. Harris read the lawyers their oath and the newest members of the Supreme Court bar were sworn in.
Following the ceremony, the group was escorted to the lawyers’ lounge. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stopped in to share some stories with the lawyers and their guests, then the Court’s photographer took a group picture.
Employment Lessons From the Russia Investigation
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has been dominating the news. What, if anything, can the Russia investigation teach us about employment law? Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the one clear answer — tell the truth.
The presidency may be a politically elected position, but it is nonetheless a job and the campaign process is like one giant and prolonged job interview. Millions of bosses — voters — use information gathered during the campaign to make an informed decision about who to hire — i.e. elect — as president. Once elected, the president’s acts and performance are not without review. Congress may impeach for “high crimes and misdemeanors” and law enforcement may prosecute where there is evidence of a crime.
In the private sector, employers use the interview process to evaluate candidates for a job. Employers may ask many questions to a candidate during the application process, and employers expect honest and truthful answers to their questions. Businesses make decisions about who to hire after carefully reviewing, among other things, the applicant’s answers to the employer’s questions from the interview process. Although many states are at-will employment states, meaning employees can be hired or fired for any lawful reason, many employers nonetheless will investigate suspicions of employee misconduct before terminating the employee.
Did #MeToo Inspire Sexual Harassment Complaints?
In 2017, the #MeToo movement trended across social media and in the news. Generated from reports of rampant sexual harassment over the course of many years in Hollywood, the social media hashtag #MeToo became popular as a way for victims to come forward with their stories and for others to show their support for victims and for putting an end to sexual harassment and sexual abuse.
At the heart of the #MeToo movement is the fact that many victims are taken advantage of by harassers who are in a position of power over the victim. The harasser uses that power position to not only assert the abusive conduct, but that power often intimidates the victim into keeping the harassment or abuse a secret, for fear of retribution from the harasser. The #MeToo movement inspired victims to come forward, who had previously remained silent the harassment.
#MeToo is, of course, a social media hashtag. According to CBS News, as of October 24, 2017, #MeToo had been “tweeted” 1.7 million times across 85 countries – and that was early on in the movement.
Class Arbitration of Employment Disputes in New York
Some employment contracts contain arbitration clauses requiring legal disputes to be resolved through arbitration as opposed to a court proceeding. Arbitration differs from a court proceeding in several ways. For example, arbitration is generally less formal, less expensive, and quicker than a typical court proceeding. A significant drawback to arbitration, however, is the difficulty in appealing arbitration decisions. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses whether employment disputes can be arbitrated as a class or whether they must be filed as individual arbitrations.
Arbitration can be handled on an individual or class basis and can involve many different kind of employment disputes. For example, arbitrations can be started for breach of an employment contract, an employment discrimination or retaliation claim, or for improper payment of wages or overtime.
Class arbitration occurs when a group of employees join together on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees to bring a legal dispute against the employer. When an individual employee has a small claim, it is typically better for the employee to proceed as a class because adding other cases could result in greater monetary recovery. However, for this reason employers often prefer to avoid class arbitration proceedings.
Court Decides Unfair Labor Practices Case
The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) grants several rights to a wide array of employees in the private sector regardless of whether or not the employee is part of a union. For example, the NLRA allows covered employees to join as a group in an effort to address and improve the terms and conditions of employment, such as wages and working conditions. Today’s Long Island labor law blog discusses a recent unfair practices case decided by New York’s federal appellate court.
Section 8 of the NLRA provides an extensive list detailing certain actions by employers that are prohibited and constitute an unfair labor practice. For example, an employer cannot restrict, limit, or interfere with a covered employee’s rights under the NLRA.
On March 15, 2018, in Novelis Corp., v. NLRB, New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed various unfair labor practices committed by Novelis Corp., an aluminum manufacturer, after employees from the Oswego, New York plant location began to campaign in an effort to form a steelworker’s union.
Employment Lawyer Peter J. Famighetti Rated 10.0
Long Island employment lawyer Peter J. Famighetti received a 10.0 rating from attorney review website AVVO. Famighetti joins his partner and fellow Long Island employment lawyer, Matthew Weinick, at the top of the attorney ratings on AVVO.
AVVO is website which maintains attorney profiles and issues ratings to the lawyers on its site. According to AVVO, the ratings “evaluate a lawyer’s background.” Their ratings use “a model that considers information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information [it] collect[s] from public sources.” That information is “considered and weighted by [their] mathematical module to calculate a numerical rating, ranging from 1 to 10.”
Famighetti’s profile notes his many accomplishments, including selection to the “Super Lawyer’s” list from 2014 to 2017, verdicts, publications, and speaking engagements. Additionally, AVVO collects peer reviews and client testimonials. For example, former client “Michael” wrote about Famighetti that “there is no one who will represent you in a more professional and personable manner that this man.” Former client “Danielle” said that Famighetti “did an amazing job.” Jaime Roth, an attorney who opposed Famighetti in an employment case was apparently so impressed with him that she wrote, “Peter and I were opposing counsel in a challenging employment discrimination matter. He is a zealous advocate for his clients.”
Religious Discrimination Exceptions
Federal and state laws protect employees from discrimination and prohibit employers from making employment decisions based on factors such as race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, and age. These laws also protect employees against retaliation. In other words, employers are prohibited from subjecting employees to negative employment decisions, such as termination or demotion, because an employee engages in “protected activity” such as filing a discrimination charge with a federal or state agency. Sometimes, discrimination laws clash with Constitutional concerns. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the ministerial exception to religious discrimination claims.
In 2012, however, in Hosanna‐Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. E.E.O.C., the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the ministerial exception doctrine. This exception is an affirmative defense that an employer can use to defend employment discrimination lawsuits. The Supreme Court has recognized that while there isn’t a strict formula to decide when the exception applies, it is usually the role performed by the employee and the religious activities of the employer that determines whether the exception applies.
On March 7, 2018, New York’s federal circuit court in Penn v. New York Methodist Hospital, decided a case based on the application of the ministerial exception doctrine.
Twitter and the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects several rights, including the freedom of speech. Indeed, the text of the Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Like most Constitutional rights, the freedom of speech is not limitless and the level of Constitutional protection speech may be afforded depends, sometimes, on where the speech is made. Courts have interpreted the freedom of speech to apply to a variety of forums, including books, public streets, and, in some cases, public buildings. Today’s civil rights blog discusses the collision between a centuries old document and 21st century technology – twitter.
Public Forums vs. Non-Public Forums
Throughout the course of U.S. history, the country’s courts have been called upon to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments. As First Amendment law has developed, it’s become understood that public spaces can fall into one of three types of forums — a public forum, a public forum by designation, and a non-public forum. The level of First Amendment rights a person has in a public space is dependent on which of these types of forum the public space is classified as.