New York Attorney General Releases: Non-Compete Agreements In New York State: Frequently Asked Questions

New York employers have been increasingly using non-compete agreements in employment contracts. In addition to bringing litigation against employers to address the use and abuse of overly broad non-compete agreements, the New York Attorney General recently released: Non-Compete Agreements In New York State: Frequently Asked Questions.

Beyond providing a helpful overview of the legal limits on non-compete agreements under New York law, the FAQ advises New York employees to take several steps and ask several questions before signing any non-compete agreement:

Before signing a non-compete 

1. Before accepting a new job, ask the employer if you will have to sign a non-compete. 

2. Before signing, make sure you read and understand any document that an employer asks you to sign. 

3. Remember that a non-compete is a contract and that you can try to negotiate its terms. 

Consider these questions before signing: 

• What businesses are considered competitors? A non-compete may not be enforceable if the definition of a competitor is too broad or prevents you from working in an entire sector or industry. 

• How long does the non-compete period last? Non-competes should be limited in time. 

• What geographic area does it cover? Is the geographic scope so large that you might have to move to get a job with another employer in the industry? 

• Are you getting anything in exchange for signing the non-compete? For example, some employers provide a bonus or specialized training, guarantee employment for a certain time, or provide payment for some or all of the non-compete period in exchange for signing a non-compete. 

• Can you have a lawyer review the language and advise you on its potential consequences or negotiate with the employer on your behalf? 

Whether you’re considering signing a non-compete or already signed one, New York law may limit the enforceability of your non-compete agreement. Obtaining legal advice regarding your specific non-compete can be essential to protecting your rights following your departure from an employer.

CNN Runway Injustice Investigative Series Video Clip

This is just great reporting (link):

Installment #2: CNN Investigative Series Runway Injustice: The outrageous cost of being a model

Available here:

"Modeling is a time-consuming, demanding and cutthroat profession. But most of all, it can be prohibitively expensive.

Unlike most U.S. workers, models regularly see huge chunks of their earnings -- whether it's a third, more than half, or even entire paychecks -- disappear right before their eyes.

One male model, for example, showed CNNMoney a statement where a $500 catalog shoot turned into a $15 check. Meanwhile a young female model saw almost six years of earnings shrink from $74,000 to less than $30,000.

Models typically aren't treated as employees, so they usually aren'tguaranteed to receive minimum wage, overtime, lunch breaks, prompt paychecks or many other protections that are common in the workplace.

Instead, they are often considered independent contractors. And this means that even after paying their agencies fat commissions of 20% or more, models often have to foot the bill for business expenses. These include everything from expensive plane tickets and group housing to the many promotional materials -- like websites, headshots and portfolios -- required to land jobs with clients." (link)

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Just Made Your Life Better

So many times better:

"The nation’s consumer watchdog is unveiling a proposed rule on Thursday that would restore customers’ rights to bring class-action lawsuits against financial firms, giving Americans major new protections and delivering a serious blow to Wall Street that could cost the industry billions of dollars." (link)

In the words of Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

“Many banks and financial companies avoid accountability by putting arbitration clauses in their contracts that block groups of their customers from suing them.” (link)

As noted in a previous post covering The Nation's article How Consumers Are Getting Screwed by Court-Enforced Arbitration -- yes -- unfortunately -- this applies to you.

Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel in Race Discrimination Case Against 643 Broadway Holdings LLC d/b/a Bleecker Kitchen & Co. and Joshua Berkowitz

On December 10, 2011, Michael S. Douglas, Jr. filed a race discrimination complaint in Manhattan Supreme Court against 643 Broadway Holdings LLC(d/b/a Bleecker Kitchen & Co.) and co-owner Joshua Berkowitz.   

The complaint alleges that Berkowitz racially harassed former Bleecker Kitchen & Co. restaurant manager Douglas during his employment with Bleecker.  The complaint further alleges that Berkowitz was not aware that Douglas, who is Filipino and African-American, was black, when Berkowitz, using coded words, counseled Mr. Douglas against hiring black servers.   

On March 2, 2016, the Honorable Eileen A. Rakower ordered Defendants to produce all of the hard copy and electronic documents sought in Plaintiff’s motion to compel, with the exception of documents related to Gold Bar or Defendants’ assets.

The Court further ordered Defendants to provide an affidavit from someone with knowledge of the search conducted concerning requests for which Defendants claim documents do not exist, or are not in Defendants', possession, custody, or control.

The Court’s Order is available here.

The case is Douglas v. 643 Broadway Holdings LLC d/b/a Bleecker Kitchen & Co. et al., Index No. 162179

Mr. Douglas is represented by Cyrus E. Dugger of the Dugger Law Firm, PLLC and James Halter and Asa Smith of Liddle & Robinson L.L.P.

Court Certifies California Uber Driver Independent Contractor Misclassification Class Action

In a sixty-eight page opinion.

Center for Constitutional Rights Update From an Ella Profile: Cyrus Dugger

I am honored to have been profiled in the Center for Constitutional Rights summer newsletter:

Thank you CCR for the opportunity to have been an Ella Baker Fellow and for all of the important civil rights and human rights work that you do everyday.

CVS Store Detectives File Race Discrimination Class Action Alleging Forced Racial Profiling of Black and Latino Shoppers

As reported in the NY Times:

"Four former store detectives employed by CVS in New York filed a class-action lawsuit against the drugstore chain on Wednesday, accusing their bosses of ordering them to target black and Hispanic shoppers.

The lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, also alleged that the detectives were fired after they complained about racial discrimination, against both customers and themselves.

The plaintiffs, all of whom are either black or Hispanic, contend in their suit that two supervisors in CVS’s loss-prevention department, overseeing stores in Manhattan and Queens, regularly told them to racially profile nonwhite shoppers. The suit says that one of the supervisors, Anthony Salvatore, routinely told subordinates that “black people always are the ones that are the thieves,” and that “lots of Hispanic people steal.” The second supervisor, Abdul Selene, frequently advised detectives, known at CVS as market investigators, to “watch the black and Hispanic people to catch more cases,” the suit said." (keep reading)

Supreme Court Rules Against Abercrombie & Fitch on Religious Discrimination Appeal

It has become a stirring and rare event for the Supreme Court to hand down a decision protecting or strengthening employee rights, but low and behold, it has occurred once more - with a decision from Justice Scalia:

"To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant needshow only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledgeof his need. Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision requires Elaufto show that Abercrombie (1) “fail[ed] . . . to hire” her (2) “because of ” (3) “[her] religion” (including a religious practice). 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1). And its “because of” standard is understood to mean that the protected characteristic cannot be a “motivating factor” in an employment decision. §2000e–2(m). Thus, rather than imposing aknowledge standard, §2000e–2(a)(1) prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge: An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. Title VII contains no knowledge requirement. Furthermore, Title VII’s definition of religion clearly indicates that failure-to-accommodate challenges can be brought as disparate-treatment claims. And Title VII gives favored treatment toreligious practices, rather than demanding that religious practices betreated no worse than other practices." (continue reading)

 

Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour

As covered in the New York Times:

"The nation’s second-largest city voted on Tuesday to increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, in what is perhaps the most significant victory so far in the national push to raise the minimum wage.

The increase — which the Los Angeles City Council passed in a 14-1 vote — comes as workers across the country are rallying for higher wages, and several large companies, including Facebook and Walmart, have moved to raise their lowest wages. Several other cities, including San Francisco, Seattle and Oakland, Calif., have already approved increases, and dozens more are considering doing the same. In 2014, a number of Republican-leaning states like Alaska and South Dakota also raised their state-level minimum wage by referendum."  (keep reading)