On April 5, 2012, the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed the burden of proof for front pay claims, in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, A-5728-06T1 (N.J. App. Div. Apr. 5, 2012) (a case which previously made headlines before the Supreme Court in 2010 and was covered in the December 2010 issue of the New Jersey eAuthority). The trial court had placed the burden of proving failure to mitigate front pay damages on the defendant—rather than placing the burden of proving mitigation of front pay damages on the plaintiff—resulting in a jury award to the plaintiff of $3,650,318.00 in future economic losses. The Appellate Division ordered a new trial on damages, holding that while an employer bears the burden of proving failure to mitigate for back pay damages, it was unfair also to compel the employer to “forecast what lucrative jobs will, in fact, be obtainable in the future market and to further demonstrate to the jury that [a] plaintiff will not pursue them.”
The countdown is on for when Maine officially becomes the first state to require private employers to provide earned paid leave to employees for any reason.
Last month, Canada’s federal government released its 2017 budget. The federal government touted the budget as being particularly family-oriented and as promoting gender equality and women’s participation in the workplace.
Are Your Restrictive Covenants Enforceable In Light Of The Illinois Supreme Court’s Appeal Denial Of Fifield?
Continuing the saga of whether continued employment is sufficient consideration to support a restrictive covenant agreement, the Illinois Supreme Court, on September 25, refused to review Fifield v. Premier Dealer Services, Inc., No. 1-12-0327, 2013 IL App (1st) 120327 (Jun. 24, 2013)—a controversial Illinois Appellate Court decision on the enforceability…..