Long Island Employment Law Blog

November 1, 2017

$39,541 Judgment Obtained for Worker

On October 25, 2017, Long Island employment lawyers Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC obtained a $39,541 judgment for their client, a former cook in a restaurant. The lawsuit, filed in Supreme Court, New York County, alleged that the restaurant did not pay the client overtime and failed to provide with her wage statements as required by New York Law.

New York Overtime Laws

In New York, employers are required to pay their employees overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week. Generally, overtime is one and one half times the employee’s regular rate of pay. In F&W’s case, the employee worked as much as 75 hours per week, but was paid only a flat “salary” rate of $520 in cash. So, F&W argued that the $520 represented payment for only the first 40 hours worked in the week, meaning the employee was owed regular wages plus overtime wages for up to 35 hours per week. Justice Nancy Bannon agreed with F&W and further agreed that the employee was entitled to unpaid wages totaling $17,452 for the 6 months the employee worked for the restaurant.

October 19, 2017

Is Perceived Alcoholism a Disability?

by Famighetti & Weinick

Can an employer fire an employee if it believes the employee has bloodshot eyes and believes it is because the employee is abusing drugs when, in fact, the employee is suffering from allergies? The highest state court in New York recently said “YES!”

On October 17, 2017, in Makinen v. City of New York, the New York Court of Appeals decided that employees in New York City, could not sue an employer for disability discrimination when the employer mistakenly perceives the employee to be an alcoholic.

New York Disability Discrimination Laws

September 27, 2017

Long Island Employment Lawyer Matthew Weinick

by Famighetti & Weinick

Matthew Weinick is a Long Island employment lawyer and a founding partner of the Long Island employment law firm of Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC. Today’s employment law blog highlights Matt’s work and experience in the field of employment law.

Matt graduated cum laude from Hofstra Law School. While at Hofstra, Matt served as notes and comments editor of the Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal, which also published his article about workers’ rights. Matt interned for United States District Judge Denis R. Hurley while in law school.

After graduating from law school, Matt worked for the Nassau County Attorney’s Office where he was assigned to the General Litigation Bureau, handling employment law matters as well as “Constitutional torts” in which Matt defended Nassau County employees such as police officers and corrections officers, in lawsuits alleging violations of citizens’ Constitutional rights. Among the high profile cases Matt worked on was a lawsuit alleging the police department’s use of mounted police was unconstitutional and another case alleging Nassau County’s decision to post pictures of individuals arrested for DWI was unconstitutional.

September 27, 2017

Long Island Employment Lawyer Peter J. Famighetti

by Famighetti & Weinick

Peter J. Famighetti is a Long Island employment lawyer and a founding partner of the Long Island employment law firm of Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC. Today’s employment law blog highlights Peter’s work and experience in the field of employment law.

Peter attended Hofstra Law School and was admitted as an attorney in New York State in 2001. Upon graduating from Hofstra, Peter was hired by the Nassau County Attorney’s Office where he was assigned to the Labor and Employment Bureau. Peter defended Nassau County against employment lawsuits. Notable cases handled by Peter include a class action lawsuit alleging the Nassau County police department violated the federal Equal Pay Act and gender discrimination laws and he defended a lawsuit, which alleged the Nassau County police department’s policy setting age limitations on applicants violated federal laws.

In 2010, Peter entered private practice working for employment law firms in Nassau County. In private practice, Peter represented countless employees in matters ranging from sexual harassment to hostile work environments to wrongful terminations. Peter fought for his clients’ rights in arbitrations and mediations, as well as in the federal and state courts of New York and administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR). In addition to the employment cases, Peter handled other civil rights cases, also. For instance, Peter obtained a plaintiff’s jury verdict in case alleging violations of his client’s First Amendment free speech rights and Fourth Amendment freedom from unlawful search and seizure rights.

September 20, 2017

Judge Grants FW’s Motion in Potential Class Action Case

by Famighetti & Weinick

Long Island employment lawyers, Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, represented a Long Island limousine company accused in a class action lawsuit of not paying its employees’ tips and overtime. On September 15, 2017, a Nassau County Supreme Court justice granted F&W’s motion to dismiss the case. The situation is discussed below.

F&W’s client operates a limousine company. According to the plaintiff in the case, he alleged that the company did not pay its drivers proper overtime for the hours he, and other employees, worked over 40 in a week. The plaintiff further alleged that the company collected gratuities from its customers and told the customers that the tips would be given to the drivers, but that the company then kept the tips, instead of paying them to the drivers. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged his pay stubs did not meet the requirements of the New York Labor Law’s Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA). The plaintiff attempted to bring his claims as a class action, on behalf of himself and all of the limousine company’s drivers.

F&W partner and Long Island employment lawyer Matt Weinick filed a motion on behalf of the limousine company seeking to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Among other things, Weinick argued that the plaintiff’s last pay stub proved he was paid properly, that the overtime claim was otherwise not sufficiently stated and supported by facts in the complaint, that the allegations relating to the tip issue were not sufficiently stated in the complaint, and that since those claims failed, the wage statement claim was also required to be dismissed under the law.

September 20, 2017

Long Island Employment Lawyers Selected by Super Lawyers Magazine

by Famighetti & Weinick

Long Island employment lawyers Peter J. Famighetti and Matthew Weinick, partners of Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, were selected for inclusion in the 2017 Super Lawyers New York Metro Magazine. 2017 marks the sixth year in a row Weinick was selected to the Rising Stars list and the fourth consecutive year Famighetti was selected for the Super Lawyers list.

Less than 5% of the lawyers in New York State are selected to the Super Lawyers list after undergoing a patented selection process which uses an evaluation based on 12 “indicators,” making Famighetti’s selection truly special. On his selection, Famighetti said, “I am honored that Super Lawyers chose me for inclusion on such an exclusive listing of attorneys.” Famighetti was selected for the practice area of plaintiff’s employment litigation.

The Rising Star selection process narrows the nominees to less than 2.5% of the lawyers in New York State. Eligible lawyers are either under 40 years old or have been practicing for less than 10 years. Weinick commented, “I am so proud that Super Lawyers has recognized me for six consecutive years.” Weinick was also selected for the practice area of plaintiff’s employment litigation.

September 13, 2017

Employment Law Update Delivered by Weinick

by Famighetti & Weinick

On September 12, 2017, Long Island employment lawyer Matthew Weinick delivered a presentation to a packed meeting of the Nassau County Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law committee. Weinick spoke about cases decided by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. Issues decided by the Court and discussed by Weinick included the causation standard for FMLA retaliation cases, whether employees can be lawfully terminated for refusing to sign an illegal confidentiality agreement, and whether employees of religious organizations can bring claims of employment discrimination against the organization.

The hour long presentation drew a large and attentive crowd. Attendees participated in discussions about the National Labor Relations Board’s recent employee friendly decisions and the meaning of changes to the causation standard in employment retaliation cases.

Weinick proudly serves as secretary of the Labor and Employment Law committee and was excited to have the opportunity to present in front of so many of his colleagues, friends, and even adversaries.

September 1, 2017

Weinick to Give Update on Employment Law

by Famighetti & Weinick

Long Island employment lawyer Matthew Weinick will be presenting a continuing legal education class about appellate decisions relating to employment law, decided in 2017. The class will take place at the Nassau County Bar Association on September 12, 2017.

Employment Law Meetings

From September through June, the Nassau County Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law committee holds a lunch meeting at the Bar Association in Mineola, New York. At each meeting, a continuing legal education presentation is given by either a committee or bar association member, or a guest speaker from outside the association. The meetings allow members to stay abreast of the latest happenings in employment law. The lunch setting fosters relationship building among Long Island’s employment lawyer community.

August 30, 2017

Judge Recommends FW Client be paid $30,380

by Famighetti & Weinick

In October 2015, Long Island employment lawyers, Famighetti & Weinick, PLLC, filed a lawsuit alleging that a Long Island gas station did not pay their client overtime for the 35 hours per week that he worked overtime. The firm also alleged that the gas station did not provide the client proper notice about his wages or proper wage statements when he was paid. On August 30, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields recommended to District Judge Spatt, that he order the gas station to pay $30,380 in damages, and $12,370 to F&W, for their work on the case.

Judge Recommends Answer Be Stricken and Default Entered

In the gas station case, F&W filed a lawsuit to which the defendants appeared in and submitted a response, called an answer. However, in the course of the lawsuit, the defendants or their lawyer failed to obey court orders, failed to respond to motions, and failed to participate in the discovery process. Further, after F&W filed an “amended complaint,” which sought to add a defendant, the defendants failed to respond to the amended complaint by submitting an answer. Magistrate Judge Shields recommended that the defendants’ existing answer be stricken and that a default judgment be entered against all the defendants because of their exhibited “willful” failure to defend themselves in the lawsuit.

August 23, 2017

Solicitation of Employment is First Amendment Speech

by Famighetti & Weinick

In 2009, the Town of Oyster Bay in New York passed a law prohibiting people from soliciting employment along roadways within the Town. Two public interest groups sued the Town alleging that the law violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. On August 22, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that the law violates the First Amendment. Today’s New York civil rights blog discusses the case Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Oyster Bay.

First Amendment Free Speech

The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing laws which restrict speech based on the content of the speech. For example, a law which generally allows picketing unless the picketing is aimed at a particular type of labor dispute has been declared unconstitutional. In Centro, the Second Circuit found that Oyster Bay’s law unlawfully regulated content based speech because the government would have to assess what the speaker was saying to determine whether the person was violating the law. In other words, as described by the Court, Oyster Bay would have to look at whether the person was stopping vehicles and saying “hire me” verse “tell me the time.” Thus, the Court had no problem finding that Oyster Bay’s law restricted content-based speech.