The New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association (the NHLRA) has recently named Nelson, Kinder, Mosseau & Saturly, P.C. (NKMS) as the “preferred provider” of legal services to the NHLRA’s members. We are excited at this opportunity to serve the industry from such a prominent position.
NKMS has long served the hospitality industry. It established its Food and Hospitality Practice Group three years ago to coordinate its several practice groups in various areas such as employment, construction, environmental, bankruptcy and credit collection, energy and utility, professional liability, intellectual property and commercial litigation to better serve the business needs of restaurants, hotels and those who support them. As lawyers, we are proud to represent an industry which offers advancement and opportunity to people regardless of background more than probably any other sector of the economy.
NKMS has also regularly exhibited at the New England Food Show (NEFS) the last several years. This year, the NEFS exhibition will run in Boston from March 14 to March 16. Come visit us at our booth and find out more how NKMS can assist your hospitality enterprise in meeting its business and legal goals. We truly look forward to meeting you.
A restaurant manager who claimed her employer fired her expressly because she was disabled, without trying to find an accommodation for her, saw her claim dismissed because she could not prove she was a “qualified person with a disability” and because she could not provide the court with any “reasonable accommodation” that would have been effective, says the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The fired manager argued that although she could not use her right arm for anything beyond holding a menu, she could still do her job by assigning physical tasks to other workers who were primarily responsible for those tasks. The Court disagreed, however, as the undisputed record showed that an “essential function” of the manager’s job involved “filling in” where needed in all aspects of restaurant work, including cooking, cleaning and serving, and that the manager who could not fill in for those tasks when needed was not a “qualified person with a disability.” While the manager argued that her “primary” duty was “managing,” the Court rejected that theory because the ADA does not concern itself with “primary” duties but “essential” duties.
NKMS has a particularly close perspective on this case as this firm represented the defendant, Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, and won at summary judgment at the U.S. District Court level and later again on appeal at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The members of the firm have long ties to the hospitality industry, which is the primary reason why the firm developed its Food and Hospitality Practice Group to work closely with its Employment Counseling and Litigation Practice Group. This win required knowledge of both the relevant employment law and the practicalities of the restaurant business.
For example, the plaintiff wanted to convince the Court that managers simply “manage” rather than perform physical labor, but the District Court and the First Circuit listened to the reason and experience in Friendly’s argument, as well as the undisputed facts, which showed how a restaurant manager cannot manage just from the sidelines, and how “filling in” on the spot at the grill or as the dishwasher cannot be delegated any more than infielders in baseball can delegate catching one or two ground balls that might shoot at them in any two and half hour game. Managing involves more than just wearing the uniform. It requires performance just in time. At the end of the day, the First Circuit Court of Appeals understood that and ruled in favor of Friendly’s.
This was an important win for Friendly’s and indeed for the restaurant industry. Restaurants like Friendly’s are challenging, but rewarding, places to work. They offer opportunities to advance, more than other industries, for all motivated people regardless of race, sex, education, religion or class. With nothing more than wit, honesty and willingness to work hard, anyone can advance and succeed in this business without the need for contacts, pedigrees or other barriers to market entry. A bad court decision that could have rewarded excuses and gamesmanship over teamwork and performance would have been a difficult millstone for the restaurant and the industry. In the end, managers can work as hard if not harder than those they manage and cannot expect their staff to do what they say but not as they do. The Court’s ruling, while important to employment law and to the restaurant industry, should not be a surprise as, according to one observer, it “makes perfect sense.”
The lawyers on the NKMS defense team for this case included Allison Ayer, Stephen Coppolo and Chris Vrountas. Congratulations to them and to Friendly’s for a well deserved win.
The Obama Administration continues to make vigorous enforcement of employment laws an essential part of its economic program. We earlier commented on this blog about the Administration’s push to enforce wage and hour and anti-dsicrimination laws. Later, the White House issued notice that its budget projections assume greater enforcement of laws requiring employers to classify workers properly as employees rather than as independent contractors. Today, we have learned from a report in The New York Times that such enforcement is expected to yield Seven Billion Dollars to the United States Treasury.
Why does the government care? Lots of workers would rather be be paid cash without withholdings and be issued a 1099 rather than have their pay reduced by federal and state withholdings and receive a W2 at the end of the year. But that is precisely the problem from the government’s perspective. Those misclassified as independent contractors end up not paying their social security taxes or medicaid taxes, and their employers end up not paying for unemployment insurance, workers compensation insurance or their share of the social security tax to the government. In addition, the Department of Labor argues that employers undermine the entire welfare state structure that is geared to protect workers as that structure assumes workers shall be treated as employees rather than as independent contractors. Workers compensation laws, unemployment insurance, even anti-discrimination laws protect employees, not independent contractors.
To add to the difficulty, every state has its own set of rules to determine whether a worker can be treated as a contractor or must be treated as an employee, while the IRS has its own set of standards. On top of that, one set of rules may apply to unemployment insurance and workers compensation while another set may apply to tort liability and tax obligations.
What’s an employer to do? First, be honest. Do not play close to the edge to get a tax benefit or to obtain some other short term cost savings. The long run cost, including potential enforcement actions, could likely set you back much farther. Second, go to the relevant government websites, including the IRS, the United States Department of Labor, or your local state DOL and learn the relevant standards. Third, seek the advice of counsel. You may actually decide to ask the IRS directly through a form SS8, which allows you to seek an opinion in advance of going forward with any hire as to whether such hire should be considered an employee or independent contractor. The IRS might not tell you want you want to hear, but you will get a response of some kind. A word to the wise should be sufficient to take the proper course and reduce the risk of multiple damages, fines and attorneys fees, not to mention potential class action liability, in the event you misclassify your workers.
For those who think unions cannot take hold in the hospitality industry, think again. The Foxwoods Resort now must deal with the UAW as its workers have voted by 75% to unionize the workplace. Why do workers vote to unionize? Just click here to find out. Read the worker testimonials about why they voted for the union. Hardly any mentions pay. They discuss for the most part having “a voice” and ensuring “fairness” and what they viewed as the arbitrary and unfair manner in which management appeared to run the establishment.
The lesson? In the end, we get what we pay for. Employers who do not invest in their employees will more likely find that a union will do it for them. As manufacturing jobs continue to leave this country, unions will follow the workers to whereever they will relocate. The restaurant and hospitality industry is not immune.
Chris Vrountas, Chair of the Employment Counseling and Litigation Group, contributed this posting.
Here at NKMS, we like food. That is, of course, why we began our Food and Hospitality Practice Group three years ago. Since then, we have regularly exhibited at the New England Food Show (NEFS) and have worked closely with the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association, becoming its “preferred provider” of legal services for its members throughout the state. But all work and no play can make any lawyer a dull duck, and so we have asked our newest associate in the Group, Kathleen Davidson, to provide us with her review of her favorite restaurant offerings in one of our favorite cities, Manchester, NH, home of the Manchester Monarchs, the New Hampshire Fisher Cats, and yes, one of our own NKMS office locations. Here’s the Manch Vegas scoop as seen by our own Kathleen Davidson:
Although I have lived and worked up and down the New England coast, I was excited to come back to Manchester this year, where I went to school years ago, not only because of the opportunity to practice at NKMS, but also because of the many new and familiar restaurants I now had available to me. I particularly enjoy visiting local establishments. While there is a lot to be said about the great chains that do business in this state (Bertucci’s BBQ Chicken Pizza, Uno’s Deep Dish, and Friendly’s Honey Mustard Crispy Chicken Wrap to name a few) this blog post will focus on the local cuisine that you can only find here in Manchester. Just in time for Valentine’s Day, here are some of my favorite places to eat:
For Breakfast/Brunch
The Bridge Café: located on the corner of Bridge Street and Elm. The Bridge Café is open from 6 a.m. until 8 p.m. Monday thru Friday and 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. It is my favorite place to go for a weekend brunch. They have great variety, are one of the few locations that serve Republic of Tea, and have excellent breakfast burritos and breakfast potatoes. They seem to focus on local and healthy foods and I’ve never been disappointed in a meal there.
The Red Arrow Diner: this historic diner serves a full menu of breakfast, lunch and dinner, 24-hours per day. Countless celebrities have visited the diner and you can see their pictures on the walls and their names on little placards on the booths. During the Presidential Primaries, many of the candidates make a stop at the Red Arrow Diner after speaking at St. Anselm College, my alma mater. I once brought the band Guster there after they performed at St. A’s. If you go there after “last call” on the weekend, expect a wait and a rowdy crowd.
B & B Café: Open for breakfast and lunch, this place has lots of selection, great prices, cozy atmosphere and great homemade smoothies!
Lunch
Ate Door’s Down – located right on Elm Street. The portions are absolutely huge, the prices are cheap, and everything is delicious. My favorite dish there is the Real McChicken Sandwich. I usually eat half for lunch and half for dinner. They make their own bread daily, in-house, and it can’t be beat.
Wicked Good Deli – also located on Elm, 8 doors down from Ate Door’s Down. They have a typical deli selection. Personally, I love their wraps. They lightly grill them so they stick together and are perfect for the days where you have to eat at your desk.
Café 324 – while I have never visited the actual location of this restaurant, I’ve had their catered lunches numerous times and they are always delicious!
Mint Bistro: This place is fancier than the other restaurants on Elm Street and is a full service, sit-down restaurant. It is a great place for either a business lunch or a romantic date. They also serve brunch but I have yet to try it. While at Mint, I usually enjoy the crab cake sandwich.
Dinner:
Ignite: on Hanover Street is my favorite place for a romantic dinner or an evening with friends. Ignite is a small, low key restaurant with a new-age upscale flare. They serve a wide variety of dishes with a wide range of prices. It is great to go with friends because someone can get a $5 ostrich burger while someone else can get a $20 seafood dish. I go there frequently and have had nothing but great meals. Make sure you try the fried pickles and any of the seared tuna appetizers.
Firefly: Located on Concord Street, Firefly is a small, intimate restaurant with great cuisine and one of the few places in Manchester that accepts reservations. It has an inviting brick interior and a huge menu. It is a great choice for Valentine’s Day.
India Palace: For delicious authentic Indian cuisine, check out this place on South Willow Street.
Chen’s Garden: This is a new Asian restaurant on Second Street in Manchester that serves both Chinese and Japanese Cuisine. The sushi is excellent!
Chen Yang Li: located off South River Road in Bedford also has upscale Asian cuisine.
Gaucho’s: located on Lowell Street, Gaucho’s is an authentic Brazilian Steak House. For one price you get an extensive salad bar and all the meat you can eat! Staff come by with various cuts of beef and you take as much as you like. As delicious as the salad, chicken, salmon and sausage are, make sure you leave room for what you came for! Shortly after those teasers you will be seeing prime rib, filet mignon, beef rib, sirloin, etc. Make sure you try the fried bananas that come with the sides.
After Dinner Drinks:
Strange Brew Tavern: located on Market Street, Strange Brew has a wide selection of beers on tap.
XO: While XO is an upcoming restaurant in Manchester, it also has a fancy lounge. This is a great place to meet for a martini!
Murphy’s Tap Room: a great location to have a beer and hear some live music.
These are just a few of the many great establishments here in Manchester. There are still plenty more that I wish to try, so stay tuned for a potential part-two review. We’ll also turn our attention to Boston, Portland and other cities where NKMS lawyers spend much of their time. The food is the best part of the job!
Usually, the answer is yes, says Lewis Maltby in his new book entitled, “Can They Do That” which was recently featured on National Public Radio. Like most employment lawyers, Maltby says he has received numerous calls from friends and clients literally asking, “Can they do that?” as they refer to an unpopular action taken by their employer. Bottom line, in the “at will” world in which we leave, chances are the answer is “yes.” An employer can discharge a worker for any reason or for no reason at all, unless there is an employment contract stating to the contrary. There are few exceptions to the “at will” doctrine, although the law varies amongst the several states. Typically, the only exceptions to the “at will” doctrine are statutory (such as the anti-discrimination laws, whistleblower protection laws, or other anti-retaliation statutes) or limited common law exceptions (including the “public policy” exception to the “at-will” doctrine which prohibits employers from taking action against employees for doing what public policy would encourage or refusing to do what public policy would discourage). Most of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that employees face in the workplace do not fall within these exceptions.
In other words, it’s a free country, and if you don’t like your job, you can leave any time you want. But that freedom for the most part is mutual, and if your employer at any time just gets sick of looking at you, there’s little law to stop that from happening.
That said, every state is different. In the allegedly conservative State of New Hampshire, the jury, not the judge, defines what constitutes a “public policy” that could form an exception to the “at will” doctrine. That approach makes it very difficult for employers to have public policy wrongful discharge cases dismissed before trial, and once something is in front of a jury, anything can happen. Indeed, the seminal case in New Hampshire, Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 NH 130, suggests that the “public policy” exception amounts to another way of describing “bad faith” employment termination, and further explained that “a termination by the employer of a contract of employment-at-will which is motivated by bad faith or malice or based on retaliation is not in the best interest of the economic system or the public good and constitutes a breach of the employment contract.” Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 NH 130 (1974).
By contrast, the allegedly liberal Commonwealth of Massachusetts has through its judicial opinions identified a very limited set of matters that could be considered of the sort implicated a “public policy.” See Wright v. Shriners Hospital, 412 Mass. 469 (1992). The failure of a discharged employee to assert circumstances falling within such matters would likely lead to summary dismissal, either at summary judgment or even earlier, leaving the employee with little legal recourse.
As we have noted recently in this blog when reporting a recent federal court decision out of New Hampshire, not every act of unkindness constitutes a “public policy” violation, although where to draw the line in some states may well be in the eye of the beholder. As for statutory claims, the federal courts have frequently noted that the anti-discrimination laws are not a “code of ettiquette” and that only “severe and pervasive conduct” that creates a “hostile work environment” can create liability for employers. Even then, not all “hostile work environments” are unlawful. Only those environments that are hostile as a result of unlawfully discriminatory practices are unlawful. A mean boss, who may be hostile, does not necessarily create an unlawfully hostile environment.
So what? While the deck may appear stacked against the employee, the law does allow for enough ambiguity to create messy litigation for employers who engage in what may appear to be unfair acts, even if such acts may not be unlawful. The best approach for employers is to focus on the business, make decisions based on objective criteria, and remember TCD: i.e. timing, consistency and documentation. For any employment decision, employers should take action soon after the event that gives rise to the need to take action (i.e. avoid discrimination claims by disciplining immediately and not waiting until after, by some bad luck, the employee tells you he needs leave or an accommodation), treat all employees consistently (consider a progressive discipline policy for all managers to follow so that employees at all areas in the company receive at least similar treatment), and document decisions and their bases well (make a record that reflects the legitimate basis for decisions as juries and judges believe paper more than memories). That way, employers can go a long way towards protecting themselves from a wrongful discharge claim.
Meanwhile, employees should be advised that, while there always may be legal weapons for the opportunistic, the legal landscape in the end does not seek to or even purport to address all ills in the workplace.
Chris Vrountas, Chair of the Employment Counseling and Litigation Group, contributed this posting.
Stephen Coppolo, a member of the firm’s Employment Counseling and Litigation Practice Group, reports the following:
In January, the Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional a Massachusetts statute severely limiting the ability of what the law defines as “large” wine producers, all of whom were outside of Massachusetts, to ship wine directly to state consumers. The First Circuit decision is a victory for winemakers across the country, as the Massachusetts’ law was the first in a wave of state laws passed in reaction to the Supreme Court’s 2005 Granholm v. Heald decision, which held unconstitutional New York and Michigan schemes that permitted in-state wineries to ship directly to consumers, while prohibiting out-of-state wineries from doing the same.
The Massachusetts statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 138, § 19F (2006), defines “small” wineries are as those that produce less than 30,000 gallons of grape wine per year, while “large” wineries are those that produce more than 30,000 gallons of grape wine per year. Under § 19F, “small” wineries may sell wine both through traditional beverage distributors and through direct to consumer shipments. “Large” wineries must choose to either their sell products through distributors or through direct shipments to consumers. Key to the First Circuit’s ruling was the fact that all wineries in Massachusetts qualified as small wineries, entitled to the competitive advantage against large wineries, each of which was based out-of-state.
Specifically, the First Circuit held § 19F violated the Commerce Clause because it had both the purpose and effect of favoring in-state wine producers and the Commonwealth had not demonstrated § 19F achieved a legitimate local purpose that cannot be furthered by a non-discriminatory alternative.
The court found that the effect of § 19F was discriminatory against out-of-state wine producers since “large” winemakers are not offered the ability to benefit from the synergy provided with dual-marketing through direct-to-consumer shipments and through traditional beverage distributors who procure placement of wines in retail outlets. The court also rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that small wineries both inside and outside of Massachusetts benefited, noting that 27 of Massachusetts’ 31 wineries have obtained small winery licenses (allowing them to enjoy the benefits of the law), while only 26 of the 2,933 out-of-state “small” wineries have done so.
The court also found § 19F’s discriminatory purpose was clear from the statements of the bill’s sponsor that “[w]ith the limitations that we are suggesting … we are really still giving an inherent advantage indirectly to the local wineries.” Further, a state senator whose district included Massachusetts’ then largest winery, which was planning to expand above the 30,000 gallon limitation, voiced concern about the legislation’s effect on that winery. Soon after, language was added to the bill exempting non-grape wine from the calculation, allowing the winery in question to safely avoid the 30,000 gallon cap. Lastly, the court found no correlation between the 30,000 gallon number chosen and any other state or federal system of classifying wine producers: the only correlation found was with the Massachusetts wine industry.
The Court further rejected Massachusetts’ argument that no non-discriminatory method was available to meet the purported purposed behind § 19F, noting that the National Conference of State Legislatures adopted a Model Direct Shipment Bill in 1997, which does not regulate winery access to direct shipments based on winery size. Lastly, the Court rejected an unrelated argument that the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which repealed Prohibition, overrides the Commerce Clause in this area and gives states the power to enact laws that discriminate against out-of-state producers.
Massachusetts could seek Supreme Court rule of the First Circuit decision, although the soundness of the First Circuit’s reasoning leaves Massachusetts with a steep hill to climb in successfully having the decision overturned. More likely, the First Circuit decision will serve as a model for other federal trial and appeals courts to rule on the constitutionality of similar laws enacted in other states.
The French have found what they believe will be a direct line to gender equality according to this morning’s broadcast of NPR News. The national government has proposed a quota requirement for all businesses listed on the Paris stock exchange that would require these companies to have their boards of directors contain at least 40% women within the next 5 years. French companies average 8% women on corporate boards as compared to 15% in the United States. But the French seek to follow Norway, which has a similar law and now boast of over 40% participation of women in board rooms. Some in France believe the quota system at the top will have a trickle down effect for women’s pay down the corporate ladder, as women generally continue to be compensated less than men in the French economy. Others view the proposed law as a clumsy blunt instrument that will do nothing more than promote “yes women” that will support current insiders. Meanwhile, the bill has general support from both the right and left in France and prognosticators expect it to pass by the end of the year.
The quota approach is clearly not the American way to achieve diversity, as evidenced by recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. While the gender pay equity remains disparate, the gap is narrowing while the number of women exceed men in workforce and as the recession in America has negatively affected men more than women. That said, evolution can be slow. As John Maynard Keynes once said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” Companies can encourage and promote diversity in a responsible manner and in compliance with US law so long as they have a responsible goal, a narrowly tailored plan, and the discipline to carry it through.
In 5 years, which economy will have more opportunities for women and which one will have a quota system? One can only speculate and wait and see.
Chris Vrountas, Chair of the Employment Counseling and Litigation Practice Group, contributed to this posting.
President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address to a Joint Session of Congress and to the American people last night. He covered quite a bit of ground about the economy, health care and national security, among other things, but he also specifically discussed his administration’s policy regarding civil rights and wage law enforcement. The president’s strident tone should provide notice to business and other employers that the federal government will be looking to enforce the anti-discrimination and wage laws vigorously and, in some cases, looking to make examples of certain violators. Here is a brief portion of the speech last night:
. . .
Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
In the end, it is our ideals, our values, that built America - values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren’t Republican values or Democratic values they’re living by; business values or labor values. They are American values.
. . .
So, it is “let the word go forth” time for this administration and its policy on civil rights and wage and hour enforcement. Employers should mindfully review their policies, develop their training, ensure compliance, make HR available and noticeable, take internal complaints seriously and resolve them fairly because employers who do not manage their workplaces actively may have the EEOC or the DOL doing it for them.
Regardless of who you believe, it is a sordid story that may lead to a tremendous liability for Starbucks, not to mention embarrassment for everybody involved. A teenaged “barista” has alleged that her 24 year old manager sexually harassed her on a regular basis and used his position to obtain sexual favors from her. The company claims that the two concealed a consensual relationship. The manager claimed he never know the employee was only 16 and pleaded guilty to statutory rape charges and served 4 months in jail. The teenagers parents seek to impose responsibility for these events upon the company.
Whether Starbucks has a valid legal defense or not, this should not have happened. Bottom line: an employer should not only have a policy against harassment, it should also have and enforce a non-fraternization policy between managers and line-workers. And rules are not enough. An employer should conduct training as part of the hiring and promotion process, and that training should be refreshed on a regular basis. A professional human resources department can also serve as a trouble shooter, helping operations work in a way that can avoid liability and working towards ensuring that employees feel comfortable in their environments by being visible and available. At the end of the day, a strong work culture based on respect and team work will do more than policies printed on forgotten paper.
The demographics in this case also demonstrate an important point. Here, a teenager has brought a complaint concerning her 24 year old manager. Frequently, sexual harassment claims, especially in the restaurant context, arise when young and inexperienced people with authority fail to manage their authority in a responsible manner. In other words, they’re not yet grown ups and they act like kids, and they’re surprised at the consequences. Yes, rules and their enforcement are important, but training, training, training, will actually better serve an employer and its employees. Having a strong corporate purpose, a strong corporate culture, and a solid corporate infrastructure capable of delivering training, mentoring and troubleshooting can help employers avoid the sordid stories on prime time and keep your employees looking at the bottom line.
Chris Vrountas, Chair of the Employment Counseling and Litigation Practice Group, contributed this posting.
For those of you looking to avoid, or obtain, federal diversity jurisdiction on any claim you may be litigating, remember that the federal court will consider the amount in controversy to include the full amount of any claimed double or treble damages under any unfair trade practices claim brought in the complaint. See how Judge DeClerico explained his recent decision here.
Laurie R. Bishop, a member of the Firm’s Employment Counseling and Litigation Practice Group, reported the following:
The mayor of New York City announced on Monday that he plans to take steps to limit the salt intake of the city’s residents. Mayor Bloomberg, who is well-known for his healthy-living initiatives concerning smoking and trans fat, says that his plan would set a goal of reducing the amount of salt in packaged and restaurant food by 25 percent over the next five years. According to Bloomberg, the plan is supported by health agencies in other cities and states. An article on the front page of the New York Times on January 12, 2010, noted doubts as to the success of the plan, explaining that it would require participation on a national scale and that some medical researchers have questioned the scientific basis for the initiative, saying insufficient research had been done on possible effects. Before you take the salt shakers off the tables though, note that the plan is voluntary only and involves no legislation. It is also meant to allow companies to cut salt gradually so that consumers will not notice a big change and can become accustomed over time to the ‘healthier’ taste of their food.
The public policy exception to the at will doctrine does not provide an employee a right of action against his or her employer merely because the the employee complained about the employer’s inconsistent disciplinary actions or because the employer may have created impossible standards or discharged people without adequate investigation, says the federal district court in New Hampshire. Specifically, the court explained that “[i]n order to prevail, the plaintiff must establish “(1) [that] his termination was motivated by bad faith, retaliation or malice; and (2) that he was terminated for performing an act that public policy would encourage or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn.” Because the employee was at will and because he failed to articulate any act or refusal to act that would have been supported by public policy, he saw his wrongful termination claim dismissed by the district court.
Chris Vrountas, Chair of the firm’s Employment Counseling and Litigation Group, contributes the following:
The EEOC announced this week that Fiscal 2009 ended with record numbers of disability, religion and national origin discrimination claims, while the number of age-related discrimination claims reached the second highest for that category in history. Meanwhile, the most frequently filed claims remained those alleging discrimination on the basis of race (36%), retaliation (36%) and sex (30%). The EEOC provides these and other statistics on its website.
Chris Vrountas, Chair of the Employment Counseling & Litigation Practice Group of the firm, has published an article in “The Dish,” the monthly newsletter of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association. Visit the NHLRA website and subscribe to the publication to see his monthly column on employment law and the hospitality industry.
