The New York Times has reported that the Senate bill has bipartisan support, as well as tentative support from the President. A vote on the legislation should take place in the near future, according to Senate Democrat Tom Harkin.

As an employment litigator familiar with prosecuting cases of disability discrimination, I believe the ADA Amendments Act is necessary. I have advised many clients to avoid federal court if they have a disability discrimination claim. Instead, I bring my disability discrimination cases only in New Jersey state court, under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Unfortunately, however, in my experience, the restrictive definition of "disability" that has been read into the ADA by the federal bench has creeped into our State courts as well. The ADA amendments will right the ship and make it easier for New Jersey employees and employers to work together to end disability discrimination.

Rep. Andrews called several witnesses who had personally experienced transgender discrimination, including retired Colonel Diane Schoroer. Ms. Schorer testified that a job offer as a terrorism analyst was quickly rescinded after she revealed to the Library of Congress that she was a transgender person. Ms. Schoroer retired from the military after a distinguished career as David Schoroer. Ms. Schorer's story is below.

Additional witness testimony can be found at the National Center for Transgender Equality website.

Kudos to Rep. Andrews for understanding that discrimination against any minority, no matter how small or misunderstood, is discrimination against everyone.

I find it noteworthy that Mr. Wallace waited until the very end of his two year statute of limitations to bring this case. To me, that means he had a very hard time finding an attorney who would take his case. If you have a hard time finding an attorney to take your case, it generally means you don't have a good case.

I cannot personally comment on the merits of Mr. Wallace's claims; however, I can vouch for the thoroughness and precision of the Federal Monitor's team of investigators and attorneys. If they say you're guilty, you're guilty. I will also say that frivolous discrimination lawsuits not only waste taxpayer money, but hurt the real victims of discrimination and retaliation, who juries paint with the same brush as the fakers. Perhaps Mr. Wallace should have left well enough alone.

The new law requires businesses to not only safeguard the personal information of their customers, but their employees as well. Although the law does not give individuals whose information is improperly divulged a right to file a lawsuit, it does provide for penalties and fines up to $500,000. A thoughtful description of the new law is set out in Daniel Schwartz's Connecticut Employment Law Blog.

Federal agencies and their employees, like IRS agents, have long been prohibited from disclosing taxpayer's financial information to third parties, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6103 and related laws and regulations. However, CT is only the second state to apply this prohibition to private citizens.

I recently counseled a client whose personal financial information was improperly disclosed by his employer to a group of his coworkers. While this client undoubtedly suffered embarassment and emotional injury due to his employer's thoughtless actions, I had to advise him that he did not have a case. Unfortunately, New Jersey does not have a similar statute and common law claims such as invasion of privacy did not apply to his situation.

I strongly feel that Connecticut and Michigan have done the right thing by passing legislation requiring employers and businesses to maintain confidentiality of financial information. I would like to see our New Jersey legislators follow suit.

Mr. Li, who was also rejected at Harvard, Stanford, MIT and U. Penn, told the Yale Daily News that his case is based on a study of admissions processes published by three Princeton researchers in 2004, "which found that while elite universities gave African-American applicants an advantage equivalent to 230 extra SAT points and Hispanic applicants 185 points while making admissions decisions, the schools placed Asian-Americans at a disadvantage equal to a loss of 50 SAT points." This phenomenon has been labeled "disaffirmative action." The researchers concluded that if colleges stopped using affirmative action quotas in admitting students, Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places that are currently taken by black or Hispanic students.

The jury is still out on whether affirmative action policies in our colleges and universities are having a desirable effect. Are quotas an effective tool in ending racism, or are they just another form of racism? I guess it depends on who you speak to, a fact which speaks volumes.

Mr. Mullin told The Hudson Reporter that he hoped the verdict "will signal to the Town of Secaucus the need to make some major changes. The mayor, the town attorney, and administrator failed to take any significant action to protect these men when their lives were in danger."

Having litigated against municipalities myself, I know that these cases are complicated and highly adversarial. My heartfelt congratulations to a terrific attorney and his team, and to the two gentlemen who prevailed in this case.

Finally, a defense attorney admits what me and my clients have been saying for years. I spend all day trying to convince defense attorneys that their clients have retaliated against mine. They look at me like I have three heads. "My client? Retaliate against yours? Absurd!" they say. Now I know what they are really thinking. "Oh shoot, not again. Medic!"

I applaud Ms. Moldover for her candor and I hope employers hear her message, i.e., that because retaliation is human nature, employers need to make preventing retaliation second nature.

Judge Wolfson's ruling indicates that the remaining charges against Sen. Bryant are legally sound, although the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence will be decided by a jury. Whether or not the jury convicts Sen. Bryant of bribery, the State of New Jersey's esteemed medical school has taken yet another serious blow to its credibility. It remains to be seen whether the University's new President can take the school in a different direction. For the sake of all New Jersey taxpayers, I hope so.

The Complaint in the case of Michael Dodd v. George Harms Construction Co., Inc., MON-L-2582-08, states that in January 2006, Mr. Dodd, a construction supervisor who had worked for the company for over twenty years, told his boss that his fellow foremen were not conducting weekly safety meetings. These foremen were filing false safety meeting reports to document “meetings” which never occurred, according to the Complaint. Mr. Dodd alleges that after he reported this conduct, the company isolated him, demoted him, took away his crew, and assigned him the worst jobs on the site, including picking up garbage.

The Complaint further alleges that in April 2007, Mr. Dodd blew the whistle again, this time about a retaining wall built by the company on Routes 1 and 9 in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Mr. Dodd alleges that he wrote a letter to Chief Executive Officer Tom Hardell stating that he believed the company had intentionally altered the design and structure of the wall, compromising its structural integrity, without the consent or knowledge of the State. The Complaint states that Mr. Dodd also contacted the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration regarding his claims. According to Mr. Dodd, the company then began an “investigation” which was designed, not to look into and remedy the problem with the wall, but to cover-up its conduct and find grounds to terminate Mr. Dodd’s employment. According to the Complaint, the company terminated Mr. Dodd’s employment at the conclusion of its investigation, finding that Mr. Dodd was “insubordinate,”“highly irresponsible,” “recklessly indifferent to the truth,” “dishonest and disruptive,” and had “lied” about his safety concerns.

Mike Dodd is a hard working man who gave George Harms Construction twenty years of his life. The fact that the company terminated his employment just weeks after he contacted OSHA and reported an allegedly unsafe condition on one of this State’s busiest highways is, in my view, a clear violation of whistleblower protection law.

The Board's attorney, Richard Shapiro, recommended that Keansburg opt out of the school funding case, given the public relations nightmare surrounding Ms. Trzeszkowski's severance package. The Board did not follow that recommendation.

From a legal point of view, the severance package issue does not appear to be relevant to the constitutional challenge at the center of the school funding litigation. However, from a moral point of view, Keansburg's position is untenable. Keansburg's conduct, including negotiating and signing off on a $741,000 severance package for an administrator (while its students attend classes in trailers, mind you), and the conduct of other free-spending Abbott districts necessitated the school funding reform law. Keansburg can't credibly complain about the law's "unfairness" now.

Congratulations to the EEOC for its significant victory. And a big "boo" to Tavern on the Green for harassing, discriminating against, and retaliating against its employees . . . and then claiming that the victims of this conduct were lying. I hope this major settlement sends a message to other corporate wrongdoers that they cannot hide their heads in the sand when their managers and supervisors harass, discriminate, and retaliate against their subordinates. Wake up and smell the litigation.

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.

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.

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.

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.