Sodexo Mutual Agreement To Arbitrate Claims

In County of Atlantic v. PBA Local 243, the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that the New Jersey Employer Employee Relations Act is without prejudice to wage increases to be paid during a collective agreement or during the transitional period between the expiration of a collective agreement and the negotiation or conciliation of a contract of succession. (March 9, 2016) In Bermudez v. Dielectrics, Inc., the Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that the dismissal of a worker for a right to negligence by third parties could constitute retaliation under the Workers` Compensation Act, GL v. 152, §75B (2). The court held that the law allows a worker to assert both workers` compensation claims and third-party negligence claims based on the same incident. (November 17, 2018) To Jaworski v. Ernst & Young, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, considered whether maintaining employment, in accordance with changes to an employer`s arbitration policy, constituted a positive arbitration agreement. In 2002, the employer introduced another dispute resolution program for its employees, including a provision that workers are bound by arbitration in the event of a dispute. In 2012, the applicants were dismissed and brought civil actions for age discrimination. The tribunal decided that the continuation of employment, after the employer had changed its policy requiring arbitration, constituted a positive agreement to be bound by arbitration. (July 23, 2015) In saleeby v. Remco Maintenance LLC reviewed the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, to find out whether a former employee filed appropriate lawsuits against his former employer and officer for conversion and default.

The Tribunal found that the former employee`s ground for conversion had failed because his “common share” in a limited liability company was “a kind of intangible property that could not be the subject of a right to conversion”. The Tribunal also found that the former employee`s ground for infringement against the former officer failed because an officer was not liable for LLC`s debts and a limitation of liability clause could not be used in an LLC`s corporate agreement to create additional obligations for the manager. Finally, the court found that the plea contrary to the former employee`s contract against the former manager had failed according to a theory of alter ego, because leadership in itself and without other accusations in the memories “is clearly not enough to impose an alter ego responsibility”. (23 In Nacer v. Caputo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether a former high school teacher had brought prima facie claims against an assistant superintendent for discrimination and reprisal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-1 et seq. The teacher claimed that the superintendent had terminated his replacement mandates because of his Cuban ancestry and in retaliation for his filing of a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Tribunal found that the discrimination action failed because Title VII did not impose any liability on certain employees, such as the Superintendent, and that the reprisal action failed because the employee failed to provide evidence that the Superintendent was aware of the EEOC`s complaint.

(April 19, 2012) In Noren v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, considered whether a jury waiver provision in a contract of employment had been applied to a remedy against the employer for violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). . . .