In Lico v. TD Bank et al., a federal court in the Eastern District of New York upheld an employee’s right to bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against her employer, TD Bank (“the Bank”), for failure to provide adequate facilities and time for lactation breaks. The FLSA requires employers covered by the FLSA to provide employees (1) reasonable unpaid time at work to express breast milk for up to one year following childbirth and (2) a place, other than a restroom, that is not visible and is free from intrusion to do so.
Category: Reductions in Force (RIF)
New Jersey Court Finds Violation of Computer Related Offenses Act and Other Unlawful Conduct, Ordering Disgorgement of Profits, Attorneys’ Fees and Punitive Damages
In B&H Securities, Inc. v. Duane Pinkey et al., the New Jersey Superior Court found that former employees taking computer files from – and using the files to unfairly compete with – their employer violated the Computer Related Offenses Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:38A-1 et seq. (“CROA”), and breached other common law and contractual obligations. The Court awarded actual damages, based on plaintiff B&H’s lost profits of $737,087.00, as well as punitive damages of $100,000 and attorneys’ fees under the CROA.
The Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act (the “New Jersey WARN Act”), may apply not only to the direct employer, but also to parent and affiliated companies if certain factors are present. In DeRosa v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division concluded that, “in determining single-employer status under the New Jersey WARN Act,  courts should apply the five-factor test” applicable to its federal counterpart, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the federal WARN Act). Those factors, set forth at 20 C.F.R. 639.3(a)(2) are:”(i) common ownership, (ii) common directors and/or officers, (iii) de facto exercise of control, (iv) unity of personnel policies emanating from a common source, and (v) the dependency of operations.” The appellate court left open the possibility that other tests may also apply, such as the common law standard for piercing the corporate veil and the integrated enterprise or integrated employer tests.