A Practitioner's Overview of the Deficiencies of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act Twenty Years Following its Enactment
René S. Roupinian, NELA, The New York Employee Advocate, Volume 14, No. 5, June 2008
An overview from a litigator’s perspective of the main deficiencies in the WARN Act, including hurdles not contemplated by Congress that have made WARN Act litigation difficult and often nearly impossible in ways not envisioned by Congress twenty years ago. Some of these deficiencies have been addressed by the current proposed legislation, namely S. 1792 and H.R. 3920 (which the House approved in October 2007), others have not, but should be considered as critical to making WARN a viable tool for achieving Congress’ purpose of providing advance notice to terminated employees.
Counseling Multinational Employees: Their Rights And Remedies Under US Law
This article by Outten & Golden partner Wendi S. Lazar sketches a map through the convoluted terrain of representing multinational and expatriate employees. Simply determining whether there may be a cause of action can require careful parsing of the laws of multiple jurisdictions and the employer's corporate structure as well as the usual inquiries into the employee's and employer's conduct and relevant contracts. Using a case study of one employee's circumstances and potential legal claims, Lazar outlines the important issues an attorney must resolve in order to best counsel a client. (2006, with significant contributions from Wayne Outten and Anjana Samant.)
Employment attorney, Wayne N. Outten, with Douglas C. James, discusses the ethical obligations of law firms and departing partners and how they must handle this situation in a way that is consistent with the principle of client choice. This article originally appeared in Law Journal Newsletters' Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Report, September 2004. For more information, visit www.ljnonline.com.
The answer is, nobody.
When a partner leaves a law firm, the parties have to allocate various partnership rights, assets, and other interests. They may allocate most of these interests in any way that they choose. They may not, however, allocate clients, perhaps the most valuable of partnership “assets.” The client alone decides whether to remain a client of the firm, to leave with the departing partner, or to choose another attorney. Law firms and departing partners have an ethical obligation to handle these situations in a way that is consistent with the principle of client choice.
Mediation Advocacy: An Employees' Attorney Perspective
Employment attorney Wayne N. Outten, Georgetown University Law Center, CLE, Employment Law and Litigation Institute: Legal Trends and Practice Strategies, Thursday-Friday, April 15-16, 2004, Washington, DC.
This paper addresses negotiation approaches and dispute resolution procedures that are well-suited for dealing with the problems and disputes often encountered by employees and their counsel.
The opportunities are legion for problems and disputes to arise out of the employment relationship – during and after the period of employment, and involving non-legal as well as legal issues. Counsel for employees should, of course, be familiar with the legal issues that may arise and with the traditional legal procedures for addressing such legal issues. But familiarity with such legal matters is not enough. Counsel for employees should also be familiar with tactics, strategies, and methods for solving legal and non-legal problems and resolving disputes that do not necessarily depend on the assertion of legal rights and that do not necessarily employ formal legal procedures. This paper addresses negotiation approaches and dispute resolution procedures that are well-suited for dealing with the problems and disputes often encountered by employees and their counsel.
Can Law Firm Partners Sue The Firm For Employment Discrimination?
Employment attorneys Wayne Outten and Justin Swartz. This article originally appeared in Law Journal Newsletters' Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Report, February 2004. For more information, visit www.ljnonline.com.
This article will first discuss reasons that law firms, especially large firms, are susceptible to discrimination suits by their partners. Next, it will explain two threshold requirements for law firm partners to sue their firms for employment discrimination. Both of these requirements turn on whether certain partners are deemed employees. Third, the article will discuss the Supreme Court’s Clackamas decision and lower court decisions that preceded Clackamas but used similar analyses. Finally, it will note that,under some federal and state laws, law firms are vulnerable even if their partners are not deemed employees.Discussion of: reasons law firms may be susceptible to discrimination suits by their partners; two required thresholds for filing such a suit; Supreme Court's Clackamas decision; and finally a note on why some law firms are vulnerable even if their partners are not deemed employees.
Developments In Harassment Law: Update For 2002-2003
Wayne N. Outten and Piper Hoffman, the 20th Annual Upper MidWest Employment Law Institute, May 28-29, 2003, St. Paul, MN.
The standard for employer liability depends on whether the harasser was a co-worker or a supervisor of the victim. If the former, the employer is liable only if it was negligent; if the latter, the employer is strictly liable, subject to the affirmative defenses discussed [within].
The Supreme Court observed that Title VII was enacted not only to provide redress for unlawful discrimination, but also to prevent such discrimination. The goal of preventing discrimination would be promoted, the Court held, by imposing on employers strict liability for the conduct of their supervisors under certain circumstances, because, as between employers and employees, the employers are better able to prevent discrimination by such supervisors. Specifically, the Court held that an employer is strictly liable for a supervisor’s sexually harassing behavior whenever the supervisor is the employer’s “alter ego” or the supervisor has taken a “tangible employment action” against the employee; examples of such actions include “hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Ellerth at 761. The Court found that the occurrence of a tangible employment action justified holding an employer liable for its supervisor’s harassment because the action could not have been taken absent the agency relation.
When Your Employer Thinks You Acted Disloyally: The Guarantees And Uncertainties Of Retaliation Law
Wayne N. Outten, Scott Moss and Piper Hoffman, April 1, 2003
Extensive statutory and case law prohibits various forms of employer retaliation against employees who engage in legally proper, necessary, or desirable activities. The law on retaliation is not unified, however; as discussed in Part I, it is spread among many federal and state statutes typically organized by subject matter – e.g., retaliation against opposition to discrimination, retaliation against government employee whistleblowing, etc. Many basic principles of retaliation law are well-established, as the survey of federal law in Part I elaborates. Numerous issues in retaliation law remain unresolved, however, with different courts openly disagreeing on the limits of employee protections, as Part II discusses.