December 2013


For entrepreneurs starting a new business, the focus often is on developing the products or services being offered by the business and, maybe, financing for getting (and keeping) the business off the ground. Yet, regardless of whether the business offers products or services, no business can succeed without people. Therefore, setting up proper intake systems for hiring at an early stage is critical in order to limit exposure to employment issues as the business grows. One easy way to do this is by using a hiring/on-boarding checklist like the one set out below. While this checklist is not intended to be a comprehensive list of issues that all businesses need to consider when hiring, it should provide at least some general guidelines for hiring and on-boarding new employees. Every state has different laws applicable to hiring and on-boarding, so be sure to check your applicable state’s laws.

Prior to hire:

  • Prepare job application (for Massachusetts employees, you cannot request criminal history information and must include a statement that requesting the candidate to undergo a lie detector test is unlawful).
  • Prepare employee handbook, including “at will” status, hours of work, absence policies, anti-harassment/anti-discrimination policies (be specific about no retaliation and
… Keep reading
TAGS: , , , , , ,


Porreca v. The Rose Group was a class action lawsuit brought by Carly Porreca and Charles Walton, alleging that their employer, Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill and Bar, had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. After Porreca was dismissed from the lawsuit, the restaurant management company that owned and operated the Applebee’s at which Porreca and Walton worked, the Rose Group, sought a stay of the litigation as well as an order (i) compelling Walton to arbitrate his claim individually, and (ii) barring him from pursuing a class action in that arbitration.  In support of this request, the Rose Group relied on the fact that Walton had signed an agreement binding him to the company’s Dispute Resolution Program, which specifically stated the following:

The Company and I agree that all legal claims or disputes covered by the Agreement must be submitted to binding arbitration …. We also agree that any arbitration between the Company and me is of an individual claim and that any claim subject to arbitration will not be arbitrated on a collective or a classwide basis …. 

… Keep reading
TAGS: , , , ,


Because ’tis the season to give, The In-House Advisor would like to give in-house counsel the following reminders so as to limit their companies’ holiday exposure:

Tip 1:  Religious discrimination and accommodations

As we all know, while the “holiday” season in December often refers to Christmas, there are many other religious holidays celebrated by workers, both now and throughout the year.  In-house counsel may wish to take the opportunity now to advise their companies’ managers to allow, and not interfere with, an employee’s observance of religious obligations.  For purposes of employment discrimination laws, the definition of “religion” is much broader than one might think and is not limited to major, organized religions.  Rather, “religious beliefs” protected by discrimination laws is defined as:

Moral or ethical beliefs about right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.

It would behoove employers to carefully consider scheduling of work on holidays and planning and scheduling of holiday celebrations with an eye towards religious considerations. Likewise, being mindful of the religions practiced by company employees may avoid issues with respect to holiday parties.  For instance, depending upon the make-up of your workforce, scheduling a party for Friday night … Keep reading

TAGS: , , ,
Recent New Jersey Case Highlights Several Aspects of the Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege


In Hedden v. Kean University, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that an email sent by the University’s women’s basketball coach to the school’s in-house counsel was privileged even though a copy also was sent to the University’s Executive Vice President of Operations and later disclosed to the NCAA. The opinion, as well as the strong dissent, address several key aspects of the privilege that in-house counsel are well advised to keep in mind.… Keep reading

TAGS: , , ,