New York Business Litigation Attorney Blog

Fifteen years ago, a contractor was hired by the city to repair a parking garage.

As of last fall, the price tag, with interest, for that project stood at $8.3 million. Three years ago, a jury awarded the contractor $7.3 million. A federal appeals court recently reduced that amount to $5.3 million, though it upheld the original verdict.

business contracts were a critical part of this litigation matter, where the contractor alleged the city of Syracuse hired it to repair the garage, and then dramatically expanded the scope of the project and then refused to foot the bill for it.

The verdict, if it is upheld, is the largest ever against the city.

The case, Syracuse v. American Underground Engineering, was first filed more than a dozen years ago, after the business relationship between the two parties soured.

It started when a 630-car garage was given to the city back in 1996 by an insurance firm, after a portion of another garage within the same plaza had suffered collapse. The insurance firm tore down the rest of the structure, but what remained was given to the city.

Then in 1998, the city awarded the contract to repair damages to the still-standing structure to American Underground. The firm was to be paid $5.8 million to remove the corroded steel and deteriorating concrete.

It's at this point that the stories of both parties diverge. The contractor said the city abruptly changed the scope of the repair work. The new plans called for more concrete removal than what the original specifications had designated. Plus, the contractor alleged when it went to do the work, it realized the drawings and specifications of the project, provided by the city, were inaccurate, and reflected a smaller job. When the contractor requested additional funding from the city to fund the added work, the city balked.

The city, however, alleged that it never called for more work, only for the work to be done in a different way. The contractor, according to the city, simply walked off the job one day, forcing the city to hire another contractor, at a cost of $2 million, to finish the job.

It was the city that originally filed suit against the contractor. However, it was the contractor that ultimately prevailed.

We tend to think of business and employment contracts as being solely for those full-time workers in a company. And it's certainly true that those documents can potentially be beneficial in those cases.

But they are also important in freelance and contractor work. These agreements can help to specify the exact nature of the work. It clarifies the exact responsibilities and fiscal obligations of each party. Some of the specifics that might be included:

• The duration of the job;


• Specific information about job duties;


• Information regarding employment benefits;


• Grounds for termination of the contract and/or employment;


• A non-compete clause;


• Protection of client lists and trade secrets;


• The company's ownership of the employee's work product;


• A method for resolving disputes.

In preparing these agreements, it's critical to have the help of an experienced contract attorney. A thorough legal review can ensure your rights and interests are protected.

Continue reading "New York Employment Contract Litigation Resolved After 13 Years" »

A man who was wrongfully identified as a suspect in the slaying of a student more than a decade ago has settled a civil rights lawsuit with both Yale University, where he was a former lecturer, and the university and local police departments.

This case may open the doors for future litigation from wrongfully accused suspects. The individual involved was never formally charged with the killing, but he claims that simply being named as a suspect was a violation of his civil rights, tarnished his career and reputation and damaged his health.

As his attorney pointed out, his case represents an example of the damage that can be inflicted when authorities blatantly ignore facts and make a rush to judgment.

The crime was a brutal one. The 21-year-old political science major was found lying deceased on the curb near her home, stabbed more than a dozen times in the neck and back. At the time of the slaying, the lecturer had been at his home alone. This, apparently, was his sole connection to the crime.

As the evidence would later reveal, the suspect had little connection to the woman, aside from being her thesis adviser. He wasn't her boyfriend. He wasn't a colleague of hers from work. He had no contention or disagreement with her. His DNA was not recovered from the scene. There was no indication whatsoever that he was ever at the scene.

And yet somehow, police came to the conclusion that he was to blame. He lost everything. He was fired from his job. Reporters began to stalk him and he became a prisoner in his own home, as the case garnered worldwide attention. His casual friends and acquaintance colleagues distanced themselves. He found himself seized with fear at the prospect of dating or being around any female.

Articles were written all but proclaiming his guilt.

Still, prosecutors never made the move to formally charge him, more than likely because the evidence against him was scant, at best.

In the years since, it has been a difficult journey to regain his position. He did eventually marry, have two children and forge a career in private and government consulting. He also now teaches graduate courses at a different university.

Still, there were ways in which the old case continued to haunt him. His name was never formally cleared - until this settlement.

Although the agreement didn't require Yale or the city to admit wrongdoing, the fact that there was a settlement, he said, has given him a modicum of relief in what was an ugly chapter in his life.

We don't know the exact amount of the settlement, except that the city's portion was $200,000.

This case is rare in that many times, civil rights lawsuits aren't filed unless the individual has served actual time incarcerated. In this case, the man was never arrested.

For those who are arrested - and convicted and serve time and are later found to be innocent - clearing a criminal record is an expensive and lengthy process that can take years. Even then, people still crop up in federal databases during background searches, which can be an impediment in finding housing, employment, or in getting things like a hunting license. Some liken it to a branding with a scarlet letter when they should never have been locked up in the first place.

Such struggles are not only unfair, they are an infringement on your right to the pursuit of happiness.

Continue reading "Civil Rights Lawsuit Settled for Man Wrongfully Named Homicide Suspect" »

In one case, hundreds of businesses were sued for attaching document scan technology to simple office computer systems. In another, thousands of hotels, retailers and coffee shops were warned of litigation for setting up customer Wi-Fi networks.

Business litigation stemming from the actions of patent trolls has gotten to be a major problem in the U.S. More than a simple nuisance, these shell companies, which exist for the sole purpose of opportunistically snapping up patents and then using them to file lawsuits and collect royalties, have the potential to thwart business innovation and progress.

As such, the federal government is taking steps that could make it easier for those defending against such aggressive claims - which cost very little to the patent holder but can pose a major threat to honest businesses large and small.

These shell firms have become a particular problem within the technology industry just in the past 24 months, accounting for more than 50 percent of all the patent infringement suits that have been filed in the country. There were about 4,000 patent infringement lawsuits filed last year. That is an uptick of about 45 percent from 2011 and a roughly 30 percent increase from the number reported in 2010.

Back in 2011, the government attempted to make it tougher for patent trolls by signing off on the America Invents Act , which made it against the law for companies to file a single patent lawsuit with many defendants. So now, a patent holder has to file an individual lawsuit for each company it is alleging has infringed.

Unfortunately, this hasn't stopped patent trolls. It's simply created more lawsuits.

In a recent speech, President Obama called the claims "frivolous," and issued an order to the Patent and Trademark Office, mandating that firms be very specific about what exactly the patent covers. When litigation is filed, he declared the patent holder needs to be very specific about how exactly that patent is being infringed. Overly-broad claims, the administration said, should be approached with greater scrutiny from the PTO, as many patent trolls take aim at business owners large and small for simply using everyday technology.

Still, some industries have expressed concern that this directive could be problematic in its own right. For example, one suggestion is for the patent office to expand a special review program just for patents related to computers. Large software companies have worried this might itself be stifling to innovation.

Pharmaceutical companies also have worried that some of the measures might hamper their ability to defend their patents.

However the federal government decides to approach it, some states have taken to enacting their own measures. For example, lawmakers in Vermont recently signed off on legislation to make it possible for patent troll victims to counter-sue. This is important because in most cases, the initial defendant can't counter-sue because the patent firm doesn't actually produce anything that could be interpreted as a violation of the original company's patent.

Directives like this can go a long way in aiding businesses in fighting back.

Continue reading "Patent Troll Defense May Get Easier With New Federal Intervention" »

In 2013, it's unfortunate - and sometimes maddening - that we must continue to face down issues of workplace discrimination.

But while litigation for many protected classes often serve to make the rules clear-cut, it's not as much the case for those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. That's because the federal protections for those who who identify as LGBT are limited, and only a handful of states have strong protections for these workers.

This leaves many of the estimated 5.4 million LGBT workers at risk for an inability to provide for themselves and their families.

New York fares better than most states, but we still have far to go.

A 2012 ruling by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission extends Title VII prohibitions on sex discrimination to include those who are transgender and gender non-conforming.

In New York, employment discrimination law covers only sexual orientation, according to the Movement Advancement Project. The same non-profit research firm reports that about 50 to 59 percent of the state population is protected from employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity through local ordinance. Only 16 states have 100 percent, statewide gender identity protection.

Some 20 states protect workers from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. MAP recently compiled a report indicating that on the whole, LGBT workers face more discrimination, receive fewer benefits and pay more taxes than their straight counterparts.

What this means is that in more than half of the states in the U.S., one can still be fired simply for being gay or transgendered. For example, one man featured recently in The New York Times was laid off after working nearly 10 years as an adjunct professor of communications at a small community college in Missouri - simply and expressly because his boss disliked his sexuality.

A federal bill called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would bar on-the-job discrimination against anyone on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. Similar measures have failed to gain steam numerous times since the 1990s. However, both houses of Congress have their own version of the legislation now and the measure seems to have gained substantial support. Committee discussion is expected early next month.

The primary forms of LGBT discrimination, as outlined by MAP's research, are:

• Bias and discrimination in hiring;


• On-the-job unfairness and inequality;


• Wage penalties and gaps;


• Lack of legal protections;


• Unequal access to health insurance benefits;


• Denial of Family and Medical Leave Act;


• Denial of spousal retirement benefits;


• Higher tax burdens.

But even with laws to address these aspects of unfairness, some believe that it has to start from within the agency. If discrimination is part of the culture of an organization, it's going to be pervasive no matter what laws are enacted.

Continue reading "Anti-Gay Workplace Discrimination Prevalent, Protections Growing" »

Whistleblowing has a long tradition in America of outing the wrongs and public risks of corporate and government entities that would otherwise not be held accountable.

For employees with access to that information, becoming a whistleblower is not a decision to be taken lightly. You do it because it's the right thing. In qui tam cases, you may also be handsomely rewarded if it is later revealed that you saved the U.S. government a significant amount of money. Also, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, passed last year by Congress, allows for compensatory damages for those whistleblowers who win their cases following an administrative hearing.

Of course, government itself is not always open to having its flaws revealed. Whistleblowers everywhere suffered a serious setback with the issuance of an Obama administration memo, instructing both the Office of Personal Management and the director of national intelligence to set standards given federal agencies broad power to fire employees - without appeal - if they are deemed ineligible to hold "noncritical sensitive" jobs. Essentially, it provides a sweeping power to sidestep civil service laws, which lays the foundation for whistlblower rights.

The government brushes off criticism of the request, saying the standards will simply allow agencies to better know which jobs are going to qualify as "sensitive." But the guidelines are extremely vague, and could potentially include jobs such as police, immigration officials and customs enforcement personnel.

If these proposed rules are finalized, they could be invoked to deny a broad number of employees the right to defend themselves in whistleblower cases when they are subject to retaliation - as they almost always are. Those workers would be denied the potential for compensatory damages because they would be conveniently denied an administrative hearing.

Take the case of a Marine Corps adviser who, upon returning to Iraq, publicly disclosed bureaucrats in the Pentagon blatantly ignored on-the-ground request for vehicles that were resistant to mines, when roadside bombs were posing a major threat to active duty soldiers.

The adviser was suspended, but later reinstated following an appeal through the Merit System Protections Board.

This is not an isolated situation. Just in the last 10 years, we have whistleblowers to thank for the exposure of the Bush administration's efforts to censor climate change reports and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration's shortcomings in halting the distribution of unsafe drugs to unsuspecting consumers.

Many whistleblowers face a harsh degree of retaliation.

One of those recently in D.C. won an important victory after a seven-year battle to regain his job as a former federal air marshal. This individual was fired after he was discovered to be the source of numerous stories revealing that the U.S. government planned to remove armed security from long-distance passenger flights as a cost reduction measure, despite all indications that Al Qaeda was intent on hijaking more planes in an effort to target both Europe and the U.S. He noted that the obvious dress code of air marshals tipped off terrorists as to their presence.

In response to the numerous media stories that followed, Congress walked back its previous efforts to cut back on commercial flight security. Additionally, air marshal dress code changed.

But the air marshal was still fired. Just this past month, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. unanimously ruled that his disclosures were covered under the Whistleblower Protection Act. That meant he would receive new hearings to have his firing reconsidered.

A ruling against the air marshal, legal analysts believe, would have resulted in a dangerous precedent that could have prompted government authorities to enact sweeping secrecy regulations that would basically withhold the protections intended for whistleblowers.

In offering legal representation to whistleblowers, our attorneys are committed to defending not only your rights as an employee, but also as a brave citizen who is speaking to truth to power and standing up for what is right and just.

Continue reading "Whistleblower News: One Major Setback, One Important Victory " »

It starts with something as small as the clink-clanking of coins in a tip jar.

But those dollars and cents can add up quickly, and if they aren't distributed fairly, it can result in someone filing a wage and hour lawsuit.

That's exactly what's happening amid a dispute with a national coffee chain, now embroiled in a case before the New York Court of Appeals. The case could ultimately have broad consequences for workers in hospitality, as well as for those working at the coffee chain's stores throughout the country.

Federal Judicial Center data reveals that wage-and-hour litigation has actually shot up more than 430 percent in the last two decades. Reasons for this are varied. On one hand, workers are more aware and sensitive to wage-and-hour issues and what their rights are under the law. Social media may be at least partially credited. But also, workers may be more and more frequently turning to the courts to ensure fair pay because the Department of Labor has failed to make the resources available to ensure employers are complying with the law.

The latter theory goes that employers became lax in their application of the law because enforcement is nowhere near stringent.

When the economy got bad, companies were able to squeeze employees more than ever, with little fear that any would fight back because they were desperate to simply have a job. But workers are taking a stance now that the economy is improving.

Claims generally fall into one of three categories:

• Hourly workers who aren't paid for all of the hours they have worked;


• Salaried employees who claim they are owed overtime;


• Tipped minimum wage workers who claim their tips don't add up to the minimum wage.

The New York coffee chain case pits baristas, who are paid hourly, against shift supervisors, who are also paid hourly and assistant managers who are salaried workers. As it stands now, baristas and shift supervisors must share the tip, but assistant managers may not.

The case is being heard by a federal appeals court, but it involves a question of New York labor law. Specifically, the issue is what comprises the definition of employer "agent" as it relates to prohibitions of tip-sharing. Additionally, the court needs to answer whether state law permits employers to exclude an otherwise tip-eligible employee from sharing the pot.

We do now that shift managers, who are below assistant managers in rank, are paid hourly, which has been part of the reason they have been allowed to share in that tip, while assistant managers can't.

The court's decision will provide clarification that is expected to affect more than 40,000 businesses throughout the state of New York, including about 250,000 hospitality industry workers just in New York City.

Lawyers representing the baristas say the shift managers should also be excluded from sharing those tips, since they have authority over the baristas, and may coordinate wages and breaks.

Representatives of the chain, meanwhile, say that the shift supervisors, along with the baristas, provide customer service, while the assistant managers have "real authority" to schedule, hire and fire.

As it now stands, it's up to the employer to interpret what state statute says about whether an employee is eligible.

Continue reading "Wage and Hour Lawsuits Up More Than 430 Percent in 20 Years" »

In the course of our many years as business lawyers, we have represented clients from both sides of the aisle in employment disputes.

Having this kind of unique perspective is of great benefit to those who trust us to handle their cases. We're intimately familiar with negotiation tactics and bottom lines for both employers and embattled employees.

One thing we've noted in all these years is that when it comes to companies, especially smaller firms, there seems to be a tendency to simply settle an employment case rather than have it played out in a courtroom. Some simply view it as the cost of doing business, regardless of whether they've done anything wrong.

But it's important to understand when this might be a mistake.

First, it bears mention that consulting with an experienced attorney at the outset of your business formation - and then periodically each year - may help you avoid many of the litigation catalysts that may arise in the first place.

In addition to that, your attorney should be involved in the process from the very moment it comes to your attention. In some cases, business are blindsided. Other times, there may have been some significant foreshadowing. When you can, get your attorney involved early.

The other thing to determine is whether there was in fact any wrongdoing.
You don't have to necessarily break the law to get sued. However, if you are being sued, it's a good idea to know - and to be able to prove - that you have done the right thing. In cases where there may have been misconduct - or at the very least the strong appearance of such - it may be worth engaging in a discussion over a settlement agreement. But that's not a conclusion you should reach hastily. You should be apprised of all your options and the potential risks of each.

You may also want to consider out how much you can afford to pour into the case, the reputation of the plaintiff and the potential distraction of litigation.

Some reasons you might consider fighting it out:

• The case is frivolous. You might need to do a fair amount of research and investigation to even determine whether that is the case, but if the case is frivolous, a settlement shouldn't be your first chose.


• Doing so would prove a point. Employees are well aware that many companies would rather settle. Fighting a case through to the end might send a powerful message that you are not willing to simply pay up on every claim. It may be a good deterrent for such cases in the future.


• There is a fair amount of bad press. These situations must be handled delicately - and your attorney is usually the best person to speak to the media on your behalf. But settling in some cases could make the wrong impression, with the public presuming that you're wrong. Even if the only reason you're doing it is to be able to move on, the media might not see it that way.

To be sure, the decision of whether to "fight or flight" is not one you should take lightly. You should never assume that you have been pigeonholed into a single option.

Continue reading "Small Businesses Have Power to Fight Employee Lawsuits" »

The New York Supreme Court has rejected the first of more than a dozen lawsuits brought by recent law school graduates, alleging their school had lured them to enroll under fraudulent pretenses.

Our fraud litigation attorneys were disappointed with

the ruling, as it likely means the remaining 14 cases will not move forward.

The case, Gomez-Jimenez v. New York Law School had alleged that school had misrepresented and/or lied about how successful alumni were in finding employment after the completion of their education. Plaintiffs had been seeking a collective $225 million.

Among the claims made by the school at the time students enrolled was that between 90 and 92 percent of graduates from the school had secured employment within nine months. What the school allegedly failed to mention was how many of those positions were temporary or part-time or how many of them had nothing to do with a law degree. Lumped in with that 92 percent were graduates who were working as coffee shop baristas and in retail sales - jobs that don't require a law degree and won't even begin to help make a dent in those astronomical law school loans.

If this case sound familiar, that's probably because you may have heard it before. A New York County judge had dismissed the action back in the spring of last year, saying that the career woes of the plaintiffs could be pinned more on the economic downturn than on the claims made by the school.

The case was appealed. However, the appellate court found that while the law school had been "less than candid" about the career paths of its recent graduates, the dismissal was still appropriate.

The plaintiffs had hoped the state's high court would agree to review the matter, but now that does not appear likely. A similar lawsuit involving Albany Law School was dismissed by a trial court as well, though that case is pending appeal. Decisions are also pending in cases against the law school at Hofstra University and the Brooklyn Law School.

Representative lawyers had said that while they were disappointed with the court's decision, one of the latent goals of the entire process was realized: law schools on the whole are becoming more transparent in how they operate and in what they promise.

Part of that has been the American Bar Association's response to this type of litigation, which has been to require schools to submit more in-depth information regarding alumni employment for publication of its annual law school rankings, which is compiled each year in conjunction with U.S. News & World Report.

The attention that all this has garnered also prompted a number of U.S. senators to speak out critically against deceptive law school practices.

Although courts in New York State have generally not favored students in these matters, they had a moderate level of success elsewhere. In New Jersey, for example, a federal judge declined just last month to dismiss a similar case, saying that it was plausible that the claims of the alumni had merit.

Continue reading "Education Fraud Case Declined By State High Court" »

School is supposed to be a nurturing haven of learning and a refuge of safety.

Sadly, our education lawyers know this is not always the case. It's troubling enough when children are cut down by their peers. But when it comes from teachers, administrators and bus drivers, it can be devastating.

Parents in New York's Garden City have filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging the public school system has practiced widespread discrimination against disabled children. It is one of a number of similar cases cropping up across the country.

In this case, three mothers say the district treats children who have autism like second-class citizens.

In one case, a former female student with a neurological disorder who is able to communicate with the assistance of a machine, was allegedly told by public school administrators that she would not be able to finish high school. Her mother refused to accept that answer. She had to fight for it, but her daughter did eventually graduate high school, and is now receiving a college education.

By federal law, the public education system must provide an education to all students - regardless of the unique challenges they face. However, these mothers say when it comes to disabled children, the school does not make equal education a priority.

As our education lawyers well know, the process for these parents often involves an ongoing string of meetings and hearings. It's wise in these cases to bring an advocate with you, to ensure your child is receiving the best possible education - and that the school is abiding by the law.

The mothers in this case speculate that the schools are reticent to provide equal education for their kids because their children's test scores, like all other students, are tied to overall school ratings and therefore state and federal dollars.

That doesn't make it acceptable.

Down in Florida, another federal lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a young female student who suffered from a neuromuscular disorder that made it difficult to sit up straight. She died on a school bus after suffocating; the lawsuit indicates bus employees failed to take action or even call 911. Instead, they reportedly followed "protocol" by trying to reach a supervisor. The lawsuit alleges a series of deaths of disabled children within the district dating back to 1999, revealing a pattern of disregard for the needs of disabled children.

In another case out of a Chicago suburb, parents there are suing the school district alleging that a school bus aide slapped an autistic male student. Parents might never have known of the incident had they not put a camera on his backpack when they noticed he seemed afraid to board the bus.

On that tape, the aide reportedly began yelling at the boy to get his hands out of his pocket, and then began slapping and hitting the child and threatened to break his fingers.

No other employee on the bus attempted to step in and stop the abuse, nor was it ever reported to the aide's superiors.

If you believe your special needs child is being discriminated against or abused, call our experienced attorneys for advice on how to proceed.

Continue reading "Parents: Disabled Students Face Discrimination, Abuse" »

Employment discrimination takes on many forms, be it sex or sexual orientation, race, ethnic origin or religious affiliation.

Our employment attorneys recognize that sometimes these actions can be attributed to an employer's ignorance of the law. Other times, it is a flagrant disregard for it.

Interestingly, the kind of discrimination being alleged by a former New York City car dealership finance employee would likely not have even been considered a form of discrimination a few decades ago. But because of our expanded understanding and exponential medical advancements in that time frame, there is no reason why an employer should view the following as an acceptable cause of termination: HIV-positive status.

According to media reports, the 43-year-old former employee filed suit with the New York Supreme Court against a dealership in Queens, seeking $4 million in damages.

Specifically, the former worker is alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and retaliation by the employer and individual liability for discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation by three former co-workers.

The plaintiff said that he was hired by the dealership last November, at which time he had about two decades of experience in the automotive industry. At his new position, he earned roughly $10,000 monthly.

Five years ago, the plaintiff said he learned that he was HIV-positive. In the interim, he'd had two other employers, both of which knew of his condition and took no issue with it.

At this office, however, he says it was different.

He said he did not make a secret of the fact that he was homosexual, but neither did he make it a topic up for routine discussion.

Despite having this knowledge, several co-workers - including the general manager of the dealership - allegedly made extremely offensive homophobic remarks, spitting out slurs and discriminatory remarks.

The defendant said he tried to ignore it, but it deeply bothered him.

Then sometime around mid-March, the plaintiff was conversing with the general sales manager when the latter indicated that his brother was HIV-positive, and that due to this, he was no longer welcome at family functions or around his children. The defendant said at that point, he revealed his own HIV-positive status, attempted to dispel the myth that HIV-positive people are dangerous.

His revelation was met with silence and a blank look.

Two days later, the plaintiff was called in for a meeting with his superiors - including the general sales manager. At that time, it was alleged that there was a "problem" with the plaintiff's work - though none had been hinted to at any point prior. He was then promptly fired.

With no health insurance and only a month's worth of anti-viral medication left, this discrimination poses a threat to his health as well as his finances.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that there were 200 allegations of discrimination on the basis of HIV last year. That accounted for .08 percent of all disability claims filed in 2012 under the Americans with Disability Act. Compare that to 1997, when there were 323 cases, or nearly 2 percent of all cases that were tracked by the EEOC.

Among some of the other medical conditions for which the EEOC received disability complaints about last year:

• Anxiety disorders (6.1 percent);


• Asthma (1.5 percent);


• Cancer (3.7 percent);


• Depression (6.7 percent);


• Diabetes (4.8 percent);


• Hearing impairment (3 percent);


• Back injuries (8.9 percent);

Continue reading "Employment Discrimination Alleged for HIV-Positive Status" »

When video publicly surfaced showing Rutgers University Coach Mike Rice engaging in abusive behavior toward his players, administrators took swift action to have him fired.

But as our New York employment lawyers know, the public release of those recordings wasn't the first that administrators had been made aware of them.

In fact, the school knew about problems with the coach since at least last year. Former nine-year National Basketball Association player Eric Murdock, who worked as the university's director of basketball player development from 2010 to 2012, said he had informed the school's athletic director, Tim Pernetti, about the alleged abuse on numerous occasions.

The allegations included assertions that Rice was shoving players, grabbing them, hurling basketballs at them and launching homophobic slurs at them.

Yet, Murdock says, nothing was done.

Then, Murdock handed over a video recording proving the alleged abuse to Pernetti.

Still, no action was taken against Rice.

Instead, Murdock was fired.

In the Murdock v. Rutgers et. al. civil lawsuit filed recently, Murdock noted that bullying had been a major problem on the Rutgers campus during his tenure there, most notably with the high profile incident of an incoming freshman who took his life and the life. Ultimately, a roommate was criminally prosecuted for bullying the victim on the basis of his homosexuality.

In the wake of this tragedy, the state had adopted anti-bullying laws and the school, too, had instituted a new policy that was to protect students against harassment, bullying, defamation and intimidation.

Yet somehow, the basketball coach seemed immune to the requirement to abide by these rules. Not only did Rice's actions violate school policy, Murdock says, they broke the law. Murdock said that in all the years of his career, he had never before experienced or witnessed the kind of abuse that Rice heaped on his players.

The school, rather than punish Rice, punished Murdock - which is a form of employment retaliation.

Murdock says he was abruptly fired in the summer of 2012, after he had put university officials on notice about Rice's actions. Murdock says the firing was initiated under the false pretense that his contract wasn't being renewed for the following school year.

Murdock says a meeting was arranged in late November for university officials to further discuss Murdock's allegations regarding Rice. At that time, the university was provided with the video evidence of the abusive conduct. However, Murdock said the school officials revealed at that meeting that they had known about Rice's conduct all along, as every practice was video-recorded.

Yet, confronted with the evidence form Murdock, the school chose to suspend Rice and fine him $50,000. No investigation was carried out.

It wasn't until that recording was made public that the university actually took action.

Now, Murdock is seeking whistleblower status. He claims that his reports of Rice's wrongdoing were protected speech, and that the administration's response to fire him amounts to illegal retaliation.

Whistleblower status is a very specific type of protection from retaliation that one can seek for publicly revealing misconduct, dishonesty or illegal activities in government or within a private company or organization.

If you are concerned that you may be retaliated against for speaking out for the right thing, contact our law offices today.

Continue reading "Former School Employee Alleges Retaliation, Seeks Whistleblower Status" »

In the wake of America's economic crisis, many workers through no fault of their own were being overlooked and outright discriminated against for employment.

One ad in particular sparked national outrage when a company in Texas indicated that the unemployed need not apply.

Now, our Great Neck employment lawyers know it's been little more than a month since New York City passed a new law barring businesses from rejecting job applicants solely on the basis of unemployment. The measure passed 44-4 and specifically outlaws help wanted ads requiring that potential job candidates be currently employed.

The idea of course is to help New Yorkers get back on their feet. In New York state, our unemployment rate is 8.2 percent. It's markedly higher in New York City at 9.1 percent. Those numbers are skewed for minorities - 13.6 percent for African Americans and 10 percent for Latinos.

A survey of hiring managers last year found that unemployed job candidates were viewed as less qualified, even when they had the exact same resume as someone who was currently employed. This provided insight as to why unemployment begets unemployment. It's not a matter of laziness. It's a matter of opportunity denied on an illogical basis, and what's more, it hurts us all as it prolongs economic recovery.

Council support was able to override a veto by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who argued that such a measure would hurt businesses who are already fighting to stay open. The biggest concern, he said, is that a flood of "frivolous litigation" would hurt more than it would help.

One would have to ask - help and hurt whom? It's only "frivolous" until you are the one who is discriminated against for a layoff or job loss over which you had no control. When you are the one who is qualified, able and eager to work, yet you are struggling to scrape by because no one will hire you - it's not so frivolous anymore.

What's more, other places that have passed very similar measures (New Jersey and Oregon) haven't noted a great uptick in litigation. One would hope that's because businesses are taking heed.

In New York City, the new law holds that an employer found in violation could be required to pay a civil penalty of up to $250,000, not including statutory fines and attorneys' fees.

Still, there is some leeway provided for employers. Companies are allowed to consider an applicant's unemployed status as long as there is a substantial, job-related reason to do so.

A similar measure at the federal level was proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011, with the President saying that requiring a candidate have a job to get a job "makes no sense." It wouldn't have made employment status a protected class, like how we view race or sex or religion, but it would have given unemployed job candidates a leg up. However, the bill, titled the American Jobs Act, ultimately faltered in Congress.

New York City applicants who feel they have been discriminated against on the basis of their employment status can file a complaint with the city's Human Rights Commission, and should contact an experienced employment lawyer as soon as possible.

Continue reading "New York City Bans Employment Status Discrimination" »

New York's new business sector has exploded in recent years, with 2011 seeing an 86 percent increase in the number of start-ups as compared to 1991.

Our Great Neck small business lawyers know that New York has always been a hub of innovation, so in many ways, this is no surprise.

The Center for an Urban Future reported that the Bronx in particular is leading the way, with the number of newly-incorporated businesses climbing from 1,159 back in 1991 to 4,690 in 2011 - an eye-popping 305 percent increase.

What we want to ensure is that these new firms are equipped to handle whatever legal obstacles come their way.

In analyzing date culled by the New York State Department of State, researchers learned that the rate of new businesses increased every year up until the housing crisis in 2007, at which time it dropped sharply (except in the Bronx, where it still rose 5 percent). But the numbers have begun to bounce back since then, and new business formation has jumped nearly 10 percent between 2009 and 2011.

While the Bronx has made great strides, it isn't even the No. 1 job-generating borough. Manhattan holds 35 percent of all new businesses (it held 52 percent in 1991), while Brooklyn held 35 percent, Queens 25 percent, Bronx 7 percent and Staten Island 4 percent.

The tech industry is a big part of this, but many other models have thrived as well in recent years. At the very least, you will need an attorney to ensure all the paperwork is properly filed, that your are in good standing with the IRS and that you haven't overlooked any potential legal liabilities.

In the long-term, you will need someone with whom you can trust with your firm's most sensitive legal issues. You need to be confident of his or her legal experience and skill and also comfortable in confiding.

In exploring whether an attorney is a good match for you and your new company, consider the following questions:

• Question the attorney's experience within the industry. Areas of business including franchise agreements, intellectual property and service contracts often require a heightened level of knowledge.


• Ask about references. While many lawyers value client confidentiality, a seasoned attorney should be able to give you at least one or two satisfied clients willing to vouch for the value of their services.


• Learn whether there are any conflicts of interest that could be relevant, such as if the attorney is working with a former business partner or competitor.


• Ask about typical communication policies. How long does he or she take to get back to clients? Does he or she prefer phone, e-mail or face-to-face correspondence? Make sure your lawyer's communication style will mesh with your needs.

Continue reading "New York Business Start-Ups Should Invest in Legal Advice" »

A new report from the National Insurance Crime Bureau indicates that one out of every three auto insurance claims made in New York City is fraudulent. It's one of the top cities for allegedly fraudulent claims potentially linked to organized crime.

Our New York City insurance fraud lawyers know that insurance agencies, and auto insurance agencies in particular, are cracking down more than ever on insurance fraud. And in light of information that false auto insurance claims add approximately $240 million to insurance premiums just in New York City alone, the whole thing is pitting neighbor against neighbor - literally.

The New York Post recently reported that Staten Island residents are flooding lawmakers to tip them off to neighbors who are registering their vehicles out-of-state illegally so as to reduce their auto insurance costs. New York has the fourth-highest car insurance rate in the nation.

In Brooklyn, for example, the average insurance premium is $2,000.

The New Yorkers Stand Against Insurance Fraud reports that more than one-tenth of all vehicles owned by New Yorkers are registered out-of-state for this reason.

Our New York legal team has ample experience in representing both insurance carriers and policy holders, so we bring a unique perspective to the table that ultimately benefits our clients. As of right now, the enforcement on out-of-state registrations is essentially non-existent. State legislators are currently working to draft a measure that would change that.

But it's worth noting that registering your vehicle out-of-state is far from the only type of auto insurance fraud in New York.

One of those involves third-party repair shops and counterfeit airbags. Let's say you are in a crash. You take your vehicle to be repaired, your insurance picks up the tab. However, you might only later find out that the airbags in the vehicle are counterfeit - meaning the insurance company has paid for junk and the driver is left with a vehicle that isn't safe.

Another common type of auto insurance fraud is in the form of staged accidents. The NICB reports that there has been a more than 100 percent increase in this type of action in the few short years between 2008 and 2011. In many cases, two drivers will work in a team to involve another unsuspecting person in an accident so that they can collect the insurance money.

Some unsuspecting victims have fallen prey to agent fraud. This is a form of fraud whereby the insurance agent pockets a consumer's money, yet doesn't actually establish the insurance. The consumer only finds out about it when they are involved in a wreck and find out they aren't covered. Another form of this is something called sliding, in which an agent may bulk up your plan with services or features you don't want and for which you didn't ask. This boosts the agent's commission, but costs the consumer several hundred dollars annually.

No matter what your situation or whether your are a policy holder, body shop or an insurance carrier, we are here to fight for your rights.

Continue reading "Report: New York Auto Insurance Fraud Rampant" »

Parents of children with disabilities are fighters and advocates from the time they are born.

Our Great Neck education lawyers know those battles have only just begun when the child reaches school age.
Many times, you are up against a district that may be providing substandard services and lessons, or is failing to provide the appropriate accommodations. Other times, you may learn the district isn't doing enough to protect your child from a number of potential harms.

The latter scenario is what one Brooklyn mother is up against, after her 13-year-old disabled daughter, who was mercilessly teased and bullied, was one day pushed by a peer from a moving bus and into oncoming traffic. It's a miracle she wasn't killed. The girl did however suffer a broken collarbone and had to be rushed to the hospital. In addition to being severely injured, the girl was also incredibly frightened and embarrassed by the ordeal, which the mother contends would not have happened had the school district taken action to curb the bullying before it got so out-of-control.

The mother has filed a notice of intent to sue the New York Department of Education in connection with the incident. The bus was reportedly staffed with one aide and a driver, neither of whom are facing any disciplinary action by the district.

The district has said the student believed to have pushed the girl has been forbidden from taking the bus and "will receive appropriate discipline."

Yet the mother says she had informed school officials for months that a group of children at the school was harassing her daughter, and she was deeply concerned for her safety. She credits God with saving her daughter, but says the district needs to ensure such an incident never happens again.

The ordeal that day began when one of the girl's classmates spit at her. Another threw her own school books at her.

The aide then instructed the bullied girl to move to the back of the bus so that she could get away. However, once there, one of the boys in the group - who reportedly had a history of violence both with other students and with this girl - walked back, opened the back door of the bus and pushed her out. He fell out along with her.

Said the girl later, "I thought I was going to die."

Bullying is not a new situation in schools. In fact, it's one they have been dealing with for some time. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education released a statement saying that schools have an obligation to intervene to address harassment, online or on campus, when administrators know about it or reasonably should have known.

The department further defines bullying as unwanted and aggressive behavior among school children that involves a perceived or real imbalance of power. It could be verbal (teasing, inappropriate sexual comments, taunting, threatening, name-calling), social (purposeful exclusion, spreading rumors, public embarrassment) or physical (hitting, pinching, kicking, spitting, pushing, tripping, damaging property or making rude gestures).

If your child has been injured by a bully and school officials refuse to address the situation, we can help.

Continue reading "Mom Sues NY School for Failing to Protect Daughter from Bully" »