Hoffman v. Parade Publications, et al., 15 N.Y.3d 285 (N.Y. App., July 1, 2010) – In this case, an employee who did not live or work in New York brought claims for age discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) following his termination. Although the employee did not service any accounts in New York, he argued that New York courts had jurisdiction because he attended quarterly meetings in New York, the company’s contracts were negotiated in New York, and the decision to terminate him was made in New York. The state high court disagreed, holding that both the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL require a non-resident to plead and prove that the alleged discriminatory action had an impact in New York.
A recent federal trial court decision out of Delaware, In re AE Liquidation, Inc. v. Burtch, No. 14-1492-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016), illustrates how, even in the context of a very troubled business, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act’s “unforeseeable business circumstance exception” (UBC) still may be used as a defense to WARN liability.
Hybrid Cost-Plus Contracting With Lump-Sum General Conditions Offers Advantages for Contractors and Owners
The most common method of contracting for private commercial construction is reimbursement of the contractor’s construction costs plus a fee, with a guaranteed maximum price. Cost-plus contracting offers the allure of “open-book” contracting and provides the opportunity to return all or part of the savings when the costs come in below the guaranteed maximum price.
As you may know the Affordable Care Act imposed a new fee on issuers of individual and group health insurance policies and plan sponsors of self-funded plans. As previously noted in our blog, on December 5, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued final regulations requiring health insurance issuers and…..