Court sides with drivers, holds that Werner violated the law. As many of you know, we have been, and continue to, fight very hard for all drivers of Werner. Since 2011, we have been litigating Petrone v. Werner Enterprises. For years, we have worked to convince the courts (and Werner) that Werner fails to pay
On July 15, 2015, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a decision in which it held that the protections of the state whistleblower statute, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), apply to so-called “watchdog” employees and that such employees need not meet a heightened standard when establishing that they engaged in whistleblowing activity. Confusion as
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs in Obergefell et al vs. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al, (No. 14-556), allowing same sex couples to marry in every state. The landmark decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, held that the plaintiffs, who were seeking “equal dignity in the eyes
On June 1st, The Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abrecrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc; an employment discrimination lawsuit in which Abercrombie refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, because the headscarf that she wore pursuant to her religious obligations conflicted with Abercrombie’s employee dress policy. The
Pregnant Employees must be granted reasonable accommodations when the employer has provided similar accommodations to other individuals with similar limitations. The United States Supreme Court ruling is a victory for Peggy Young, a former driver for UPS who claimed the package company violated her rights under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). She will now have
On May 2, 2013, a former employee of GHM Associates of America, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit in Trenton, New Jersey (NJ) asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (“FLSA”), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJ WHL”), and the New Jersey Wage Payment and Collection Law (“NJ WPCL”). The employee contends that