New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

NJ’s Attorney General filed an injunction today to block the $741,000 retirement package for Keansburg Schools Superintendent Barbara A. Trzeszkowski, claiming that payout breaks the public trust and is illegal. “For a school board to so outrageously enrich a former superintendent through this type of ‘golden parachute’ at the expense of the children of Keansburg and the state’s taxpayers is not only contrary to public policy and unconscionable, it violates the fiduciary duty that the board owes the public,” says the state’s brief.

The State is specifically alleging that the severance package is unlawful and should be voided because:

• it violates public policy in that public funds are being used to pay for an “unreasonable and excessive (severance) provision” benefitting Ms. Trzeskowski and not the students;

• the school board members who approved Ms. Trzeszkowski’s severance package “breached their fiduciary obligation to the citizens of Keansburg and New Jersey to adequately protect the public funds” from excessive costs; and

• the contract lacks legal “consideration” in that the severance provision was calculated based on Ms. Trzeskowski’s 30-plus years of service in Keansburg, most of which was spent in jobs other than Superintendent.

I have to say that, despite my vocation as a plaintiff’s employment lawyer, I find this severance package to be excessive. I’m sure Ms. Trzeskowski is a very fine public servant, but the State is right on this one . . . the students should come first. Keansburg needs that money more than the Superintendent does. The severance package should be redrafted to provide a saner amount.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Severance Negotiations

Bookmark:

Jevic Transportation laid off 1,200 workers in Delanco, NJ today, without adequate notice, without severance pay and apparently, in some cases, without their last paychecks. Jevic's conduct appears to violate NJ's "mini-WARN" statute, which became effective on December 20, 2007. Under this law, employers with over 100 employees are required to give 60 days' advance notice to employees who are terminated in a mass layoff or operation shutdown. The Company's failure to pay their workers their lawfully earned wages on the proper payday violates the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

Said State Sen. Diane Allen, who recently spoke at a gathering of the laid off workers, "[u]nder our law these employees should be given one week of severance for every year they have worked. And they should have been given 60 days notice so they had time to find a new job and get acclimated and get new health insurance. What happened is these people were just thrown out on the street."

My heart goes out to the families of the affected workers. I hope they land on their feet quickly and obtain the benefits they deserve under law.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Severance Negotiations

Bookmark:

In my experience, most people who sue their employers for discrimination or retaliation are not looking for money. They are looking for justice. They want a wrong to be righted. They want an admission of guilt from the employer, an acknowledgment that it messed up. In short, they want an apology. Unfortunately, an apology is the one thing my clients never get. They might get some money. They might get some self-respect back and some vindication. But those three little words they want to hear so badly -- "I am sorry" -- will never, ever come. And that's a shame.

So-called "apology laws" are on the books in 34 states in the medical malpractice area. Under these laws, apologies made by health professionals to injured patients are not admissible in court. This encourages doctors, who are only human after all, to own up to their mistakes and apologize without having a plaintiff's attorney ram it down their throat at trial. The New York Times reported yesterday that hospitals which have adopted this approach have seen their medical malpractice lawsuits diminish substantially. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/18apology.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

This approach would work quite well in employment discrimination and retaliation cases. I recently resolved a whistleblower case largely because the employer owned up and admitted it made a mistake. I was stunned. My client was satisfied. The case got settled. I know a lot of my cases would go the same way if the employers did the right thing and acknowledged their wrongdoing.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Civil Rights Violations , Discrimination and Harassment , Food for Thought , Whistleblower Retaliation

Bookmark:

New Jersey is home to over two thousand employment agencies, consulting firms, and career consulting or outplacement agencies, according to the latest government figures. http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ca/proposal/person107.htm. Many of these firms provide highly educated and highly skilled consultants to the State's largest employers, including those in the pharmaceutical, chemical, insurance, and financial industries. Employment agencies typically require its consultants to sign non-compete agreements before they commence working with an end-client. They do so to prevent the consultant from "eliminating the middleman" and working for the end-client directly. But are these non-competes enforceable?

One defense to non-compete litigation which my firm has used to good effect is based on the New Jersey Employment and Personnel Services Act. This law requires employment agencies and temporary help firms to obtain a license from, or register with, the New Jersey Division of Consumer Protection. If the employment firm is not in compliance with this law, any contracts it makes with its consultants, including non-compete agreements, are unenforceable. Surprisingly, many employment agencies are either unaware of this law or don't care enough to comply. They are in for a very rude awakening when they sue one of my clients.

I would suggest that if you are asked to sign a non-compete by your employment agency, do a quick search at http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/ocp/agency.pdf to determine whether the agency is properly registered or licensed. Then get some advice from an experienced non-compete attorney who can lay out your legal options and give you the advice you need to move forward.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Non-Compete Agreements

Bookmark:

We recently filed a lawsuit for Mr. Richard Boywitt, a whistleblower who was just doing his job as Bank Secrecy Act Compliance Officer for a local bank when he told his boss that he intended to file a report about a potential money laundering scheme. Instead of thanking Mr. Boywitt for exposing the suspicious activity, the Bank's President cursed him out and fired him, according to the Complaint in the case of Boywitt v. Brunswick Bancorp d/b/a Brunswick Bank and Trust Company, Docket No. MID-L-3503-08.

According to the Complaint, Mr. Boywitt's job duties included monitoring customer transactions and filing reports of suspicious banking activity with FinCen, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury. In early April 2007, Mr. Boywitt learned that a bank customer had repeatedly exchanged thousands of dollars in old $5 bills for new cash. When Mr. Boywitt questioned two tellers about the transactions, they stonewalled him, refused to monitor the customer further, and allegedly lied to him regarding a transaction where $8,000 of the old cash was exchanged.

The Complaint further alleges that Mr. Boywitt, who was obligated by law to report this suspicious activity, notified his boss, Mr. Roman T. Gumina, III, of his intent to file a report with FinCen. Two days later, Mr. Gumina allegedly cursed out Mr. Boywitt and abruptly fired him, saying "you would file (a suspicious activity report) against (Bank) employees? Are you f-----g out of your mind? You're fired!"

The lawsuit alleges that the Bank fired Mr. Boywitt in retaliation for his protected whistleblowing activity. In my view, the statement by the Bank President is strong "direct evidence" of retaliatory intent. The timing of the termination in relation to the whistleblowing activity is strong "circumstantial evidence" of retaliatory intent.

You can view the full press release on this matter here: http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2008/5/prweb910434.htm.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Whistleblower Retaliation

Bookmark:

The Newark Star-Ledger reported yesterday that four cardiologists who were allegedly given plum academic jobs at UMDNJ in exchange for kickbacks agreed to pay the government almost $400,000 to settle the civil lawsuits against them. This is a great victory for the U.S. Attorney, who was prosecuting these cases. However, we must acknowledge and thank Dr. Rohit Arora, UMDNJ's former Chief of its Cardiology Division, the whistleblower who first exposed the kickback scheme. Had Dr. Arora not come forward, New Jersey would have wasted hundreds of thousands of tax dollars paying the salaries of these individuals, who, as claimed by Dr. Arora and the U.S. Attorney, did not have the credentials or qualifications to be members of the academic staff of the University. Moreover, the students of UMDNJ would have been deprived of professors who truly had something to teach, in favor of the greedy and the unethical.

This case highlights the fact that the public service which whistleblowers perform is significant and necessary. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Here we are almost a year after Dr. Arora settled his whistleblower lawsuit and the positive effects are still being felt.

The new President of the UMDNJ, Dr. William Owen, has publicly declared that the end of the corruption is in sight. I am cautiously optimistic that this is the case. It is way past time for the University to acknowledge its mistakes -- especially its mistakes in the way it has treated, and, in some cases, continues to mistreat, whistleblowers.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Whistleblower Retaliation

Bookmark:

The U.S. Senate has finally acted on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 by approving it with a vote of 95-0. This bill had passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 420-3 last year but languished in the Senate. President Bush supports the bill, and has said that he will sign it. This legislation is long overdue; similar bills to ban discrimination against persons with genetic disorders have been in Congress for the last 13 years.

The bill will bring welcome relief to people who suffer from debilitating genetic disorders, such as Tay-Sachs disease and Cystic Fibrosis, and who have experienced discrimination either from their employers, potential employers, or health insurers. The bill prohibits employers from using genetic information in hiring, firing, pay or promotion decisions. It bars health insurers from requiring clients to submit to genetic testing, and also from rejecting coverage or raising premiums for healthy people based on an inherited genetic predisposition to develop a particular condition.

As I wrote in my April 18, 2008 blog post, the purpose of this law and its New Jersey counterpart is to encourage Americans to take advantage of genetic testing as part of their medical care and protect them from employers who would "screen" them out of jobs based on stereotypes or other false assumptions about genetic disorders. These are laudable, common sense goals and I congratulate the many people and organizations who stood behind this bill and supported it all these years.

Posted by Steven Siegler | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Discrimination and Harassment

Bookmark: