Shain v. Hel Limited, et al., 2012 WL 671922 (App. Div. Mar. 2, 2012): The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of a plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim under the NJLAD. The plaintiff, employed as a salesman, discovered alleged anti-Semitic comments about the plaintiff contained in a single email between a supervisor to another supervisor, and alleged that the email created a hostile work environment. The Appellate Division found the comments were not sufficiently “severe” because: the comments were not made to the plaintiff’s face directly; the plaintiff only became aware of the email after he retrieved an email through the company database; the comment was not made by the plaintiff’s ultimate supervisor; and the supervisor who made the comment was promptly reprimanded and apologized to the plaintiff for the comment.
On December 9, 2016, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced bipartisan legislation that would provide DREAMers with employment authorization and temporary protection from removal. The term “DREAMers” refers to young people who were brought to the United States, as children, without authorization. The bill has been named the BRIDGE Act, which stands for “Bar Removal of Immigrants who Dream and Grow the Economy.” Ultimately, the BRIDGE Act is an effort to codify President Obama’s 2012 DACA initiative in the face of anticipated restrictionist changes that President Donald Trump is widely expected to undertake.
A state appellate court recently ruled that an employer is not liable for the injuries caused by a drunk driving accident involving one of its workers. According to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, although the worker became intoxicated while meeting with his supervisor at a restaurant, his employer did not have a duty of care under
SCOTUS Rules CAFA Removal Notices Need Contain Only a Plausible Allegation That Amount in Controversy is Satisfied
On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a critical issue regarding Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) removals. Specifically, the Supreme Court settled a controversy surrounding what information a removing defendant must provide regarding the CAFA amount in controversy in its notice of removal……