Our Experience

In New York, a non-compete is only allowed and enforceable to the extent it is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, does not impose an undue hardship on the employee, does not harm the public, and is reasonable in time period and geographic scope.

However, these cases are often much more complex than if the company was in their right. In fact, the courts must also consider the sale of the business and employment termination without cause.

An employee who discloses or uses a trade secret, who knowingly obtained it under circumstances that gives rise to a duty to maintain secrecy or limit the use of the information. This may be an employee who moves from one company to the next and uses that information from the former employer to aid in the new company. The employee may be held liable for misappropriation.

Damages someone may be awarded in a successful employment case include all of the financial and emotional losses suffered as the result of an employment dispute and in some cases, punitive damages.

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) amended the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and other disability discrimination laws at the federal level as a response to a number of decisions by the Supreme Court that had interpreted the original text of the ADA.

The jurors’ social media use has the potential to affect trial outcomes and lead to mistrials. In the past, jurors have been being charged with contempt for inappropriate social media use. 

When an employer has one factly based reason to terminate an employee and another which has played a role in their decision, the courts often have to look at the mixed-motive. For example, an employer may fire a nonwhite employee for wrongly stating their job qualifications. It is unlikely that the former employee could sue for racial discrimination because they had, in fact, done something wrong. But, if the employer fires that same employee because they do not like the same movies, the employee can likely sue for wrongful dismissal since personal preference has nothing to do with employment ability. 

On March 1, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision on the “cat’s paw” theory of liability as a result of the case, Staub v. Proctor Hospital. The “cat’s paw” theory holds employers liable for discrimination by employees who influence the employer’s decision to take adverse employment action against another employee.