Establishing Judicial Estoppel Defense Against Bankruptcy Plaintiff Just Became Harder

Establishing the judicial estoppel defense against a bankrupt plaintiff will be harder in the Eleventh Circuit following Smith v. Haynes & Haynes P.C., 940 F.3d 635 (11th Cir. 2019).

Judicial estoppel is a legal defense used for early dismissal of cases against bankrupt plaintiffs. In a bankruptcy, judicial estoppel applies if a debtor plaintiff omits any claim that the plaintiff knew of at the time of filing for bankruptcy or learned of while the bankruptcy case was pending. If a defendant succeeds in establishing judicial estoppel, the plaintiff is barred from pursuing a case regardless of the claim’s merits.

The plaintiff, Jenny Smith, sued her former employer, Haynes & Haynes, a law firm, alleging claims for unpaid overtime and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Smith began working for Haynes & Haynes after filing for bankruptcy. On her bankruptcy filings she stated she had no claims that might prompt a lawsuit. While this disclosure was true when she filed for bankruptcy, she failed to amend her bankruptcy filing when she realized she had a claim against Haynes & Haynes.

The district court granted summary judgment for the employer on Smith’s overtime claim, relying on the judicial estoppel defense. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed summary judgment on judicial estoppel grounds, holding the district court did not have the benefit of Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 871 F. 3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2017) (Slater II), at the time of its ruling.

Before Slater II, the bar to prove judicial estoppel was “exceeding low.” A defendant simply relied on the plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing to show the plaintiff had a potential claim and failed to disclose it, and courts would infer that a plaintiff always had motive to deceive the bankruptcy court, thus, establishing judicial estoppel.

The Eleventh Circuit stated that this presumption of deceit produced perverse results and defendants, such as employers, were the only party that benefited because judicial estoppel barred the omitted lawsuit without showing the plaintiff intended to deceive. Courts must apply Slater II’s “all the facts and circumstances” standard to determine the plaintiff’s intent when she omitted her claims in her bankruptcy petition.

The Eleventh Circuit said it was “far from clear” that Smith acted in bad faith because she denied motive to deceive the court and may not have known she had to update her bankruptcy filing when she learned of her claims. It also stated that the district court erred applying judicial estoppel based on the inconsistencies between Smith’s initial and amended complaint, stating that her inconsistent statements about when she learned of her claims against the employer did not show intent to deceive.

In this case Plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, which allows a portion of a debtor’s future earnings to be collected by a trustee and paid to creditors. The Court recognized that a Chapter 13 debtor does not receive a discharge of her debts; rather, the debtor is allowed to extend or reduce the balance of her debts through a plan of rehabilitation. By contrast, in a Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee is the party conferred with standing to enforce or abandon the rights of the debtor followed by issuance of a discharge. If Plaintiff’s petition was filed under Chapter 7, undisclosed contingent claims could still result in the successful assertion of a lack of standing defense. Accordingly, the discovery of a claimant’s bankruptcy proceeding remains an important area of inquiry in employment litigation.

No Magic Words Needed in Employee Requests for Leave That Might Be Protected By FMLA

A terminated employee may proceed with his Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation claim even though he never specifically requested leave under that statute, a Maine federal court has ruled. Waterman v. Paul G. White Interior Solutions, No. 2:19-cv-00032-JDL (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019).

The employee worked as a floor finisher and installer for a flooring company. His father had been diagnosed with several serious health conditions. On April 8, 2018, the employee’s stepmother told him that his father’s doctor advised that his father would “mostly likely die” if he did not immediately return to the doctor for tests and treatment. The employee had shared his father’s worsening condition with his supervisor and two coworkers. However, he did not know that his father was near to death until the conversation with his stepmother.

The employee missed work to care for his ill father from April 9 to April 16. He left a voicemail with his supervisor on April 9. On April 10, he left a voicemail with a co-owner of the company explaining his father’s situation. Neither the supervisor nor the owner responded to the employee’s voicemails. When the employee did not appear for his shift on April 16, the owner sent him a Facebook message asking where he was. On April 17, the employee responded that his father was “still pretty bad off.” Thereafter, the company terminated his employment.

The employee sued the company for retaliation in violation of the FMLA.

The company filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the employee’s absence was not protected under the FMLA because he had not provided prior notice of his intent to take leave under the statute.

The court denied the motion and allowed the claim to proceed, finding the complaint raised a plausible inference that the employee provided adequate notice of his intent to take FMLA leave. The court also found the complaint plausibly alleged that the employee’s attempt to take FMLA leave and his termination were causally connected.

Employers should not split hairs when an employee takes time off from work for reasons that could come within the purview of the FMLA. The best course is to look at the situation as a whole and, if the FMLA is implicated, take actions to allow the statutorily protected rights.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

Four Ways of Avoiding Liability on Common Wage and Hour Compliance Issues

Wage and hour lawsuits are big news these days. Jury verdicts and settlements capture headlines warning of damages and fees totaling seven or more figures, and class certifications in pending cases exponentially expand the risk posed by a single miscalculation or mistaken designation. How can employers best reduce the risk of becoming the next cautionary tale in wage and hour compliance?

Generally, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires employers to classify employees as either exempt or non-exempt for purposes of minimum wage, overtime and recordkeeping requirements. See 29 U.S.C. sections 201-219.   Employers must pay non-exempt workers at least a minimum hourly rate for each hour worked, must pay overtime in an amount of one-and-a-half times the regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, and must maintain an accurate account of all hours worked for at least two to three years. State and local laws on these topics vary, and employers must abide by whichever requirements are the most restrictive. By contrast, exempt employees do not receive overtime pay and their employers need not keep track of actual hours worked.

Below are four common mistakes with potentially serious consequences illustrated by today’s headlines:

  1. Identify Employees Based on Economic Reality, Not Titles or Labels

As a threshold matter, FLSA applies to “employees” but not to independent contractors or volunteers. In today’s gig economy, this distinction is crucial. The economic reality behind a working relationship governs whether workers are correctly identified as “employees” in the first instance, including:

  • Whether the services rendered are an integral part of the principal’s business;
  • Whether the worker exercises independent initiative and judgment in a freestanding enterprise operating in an open and competitive market;
  • Whether the worker has invested in facilities and equipment;
  • Whether the worker is subject to another’s direction and control;
  • Whether the worker incurs profit or loss on work performed.

No one of these factors is dispositive. However, courts and the Department of Labor alike examine the economic reality behind the four corners of documents that purport to establish an independent contractor relationship. It is not enough that workers have the appearance of independence through contracts, LLC incorporations, and taxation on a 1099 basis.

  1. Classify All Employees, Both Exempt and Non-Exempt

Those properly identified as “employees” must next be correctly designated as either exempt or non-exempt for FLSA purposes. To classify an employee as exempt, an employer must be able to demonstrate that the job satisfies a minimum salary threshold and that its primary responsibilities are one or more of the following:

  • The professional exemption, involving work “requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of intellectual instruction”;
  • The administrative exemption, involving office or non-manual work directly related to management or operations requiring discretion and independent judgment on significant matters;
  • The executive exemption, involving management of an enterprise, including discretion and authority in hiring, firing, promoting, and directing the work of others;
  • Miscellaneous exempt positions, such as computer system analysts, outside sales representatives, and certain highly compensated white collar employees.

Each of these standards must be met by reference to the actual responsibilities of the employee, and not to the job title, job description or qualifications of the employee.

  1. Keep Accurate Attendance Data for All Non-Exempt Employees

Prevailing plaintiffs on FLSA claims may recover unpaid overtime and liquidated damages for at least the two years prior to the date of the claim, plus attorney fees and costs. However, this timeframe extends to three years if the evidence establishes that the employer’s conduct in the misclassification was “willful” or reflected “reckless disregard.” Adding to that risk is (1) that of an adverse inference in the number of overtime hours actually worked, if the employer did not record and retain hourly records for mis-classified employees, and (2) that an exponential multiplication of damages may result if relatively small claims aggregate in a class action.

Unpaid overtime may accrue in unexpected ways that may appear to be miniscule but that when aggregated over an entire workforce may result in significant liability. Examples include reviewing and acting upon off-hours email transmissions, responding to assignments during breaks, or performing work-related tasks either prior to clocking in or subsequent to clocking out.

4. Train All Employees to Observe FLSA Requirements

Both exempt and non-exempt employees should receive training in the basic requirements of the FLSA. For exempt employees, particularly those with responsibility for directly managing the work of others, this means respecting time before, during, or after working hours for which the employee is not paid. Non-exempt employees with remote access to employer computer systems or e-mail via work or personal communication device may perform compensable work not captured by the company’s timekeeping systems. Additionally, management-level employees must enforce the company’s timekeeping policies and practices vigilantly, e.g., punching in and out for lunch, ensuring no compensable work is performed off the clock, and so forth. Minutes per day of uncompensated time will add up to hours over two or three years, and may quickly escalate if uncompensated time multiplies across an entire workforce. Similarly, non-exempt employees should receive training in policies with multiple avenues of internal redress so that misunderstandings do not go unremediated until yet another wage and hour lawsuit hits the headlines.


In short, the best way to avoid small mistakes from escalating into significant FLSA liability is to take the foregoing proactive compliance steps. Counsel with experience in state law can provide essential guidance in compliance with local restrictions that differ from federal law.

Employers Must Ensure Their Leave Administrators Understand Who Is Entitled to FMLA Leave

Employers must ensure they understand who is entitled to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In a recent decision, a federal court has ordered a plaintiff’s claims to proceed to a jury trial to determine whether the plaintiff’s former employer interfered with her rights under FMLA.

In Gibson v. New York State of Mental Health, et al., No. 6:17-cv-0608 (N.D.N.Y Nov. 25, 2019), the plaintiff requested a leave of absence to care for her 31-year-old daughter and minor grandchildren. The employer denied her leave request because her daughter was over 18 years old and the plaintiff sued the employer.

Under the FMLA, an eligible employee is entitled to leave to care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition. The definition of a “son or daughter” includes individuals who are over 18 years old and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability. A willful violation has a three-year statute of limitations.

The employer’s Associate Personnel Administrator reviewed the plaintiff’s leave request and discussed the request with an attorney. Ultimately, the plaintiff’s request was denied.

The court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The court focused on contemporaneous documentation prepared by the employer in denying plaintiff’s leave request in which there is no indication her daughter’s capability for self-care was considered. This included the denial letter to the plaintiff and notes from the Associate Personnel Administrator’s conversation with the attorney.

The court held that a factfinder could conclude the employer did not rely on a finding as to whether the plaintiff’s daughter was incapable of self-care in denying her leave request and allowed the case to proceed to trial.

Employers must ensure that personnel responsible for making leave determinations fully understand who is entitled to leave under the FMLA and applicable state and local laws. When denying a leave request, prepare contemporaneous documentation of all reasons for the denial as it could become key evidence in a future FMLA case.

Can Cross-Generational Viral Internet Phrases in the Workplace Create Unlawful Age Discrimination?

“OK Boomer” is having a moment on the internet, appearing often in viral jokes and memes. It is widely considered an all-purpose retort by the younger generations of Millennials and Gen Z’ers to dismiss thoughts and ideas they view as too old-fashioned. Some even use “OK Boomer” to discount opinions stereotypically attributed to the Baby Boomer generation.

For their part, Millennials suffered being labeled “The ME ME ME Generation,” which has turned into other dysphemisms such as “snowflake,” used to describe self-perceived specialness.

When do viral jokes and memes in the workplace become evidence of unlawful age discrimination?

“OK Boomer” began simply enough as an irreverent joke pointing out generational differences in opinions. But, at its core, it could be interpreted to convey the message: “You are old and therefore your opinion is antiquated.” In the workplace, such phrases can create an inference of age discrimination under federal anti-discrimination laws, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and corresponding state anti-discrimination laws. These laws protect all workers who are at least 40 years of age from discriminatory practices in employment. They also protect workers from age-based discrimination and harassment.

Use of the phrase “OK Boomer” once likely will not rise to the level necessary to demonstrate actual discrimination or harassment based on age. However, repeated comments that reference age and use of such phrases as “OK Boomer” or “snowflake” may be used as evidence of age-based discriminatory practices. Additionally, these types of remarks may be used in litigation to support the argument that employers who do not take steps to stop the behavior foster a workplace culture that tolerates age-based discrimination.

Some state laws also protect younger workers from discrimination or harassment based on age. For example, the New York City Human Rights Law and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination protect employees of all ages from age-based discrimination and harassment. Therefore, repeatedly referring to a younger worker as a “snowflake” or otherwise treating that employee less favorably because of his or her younger age may be seen as age-based discrimination or harassment.

Employers must impart to their employees a shared responsibility to prevent and avoid comments that may be construed as ageist. Employers should consider including in their regular training sessions lessons on the prohibition of age-based comments and remarks in the workplace. Even when intended to be funny, such comments and remarks can be seen as evidence of age-based animus and may lead to claims of age discrimination or harassment. Similarly, employers should consider adopting policies that clearly prohibit comments and remarks that are directly tied to age or demonstrate generational animus.

For additional guidance on these issues, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.

Court Orders Government to Turn Over Statements from Non-Testifying Informants

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently rejected the government’s argument that statements from non-testifying witnesses collected during a wage and hour investigation were protected under the government-informant privilege. Secretary of Labor v. Yianna Food Corp. d/b/a Williston Town House Diners, et al., E.D.N.Y. Case No. 17-CV-6974.

Government agencies frequently assert the government-informant privilege to “withhold from disclosure the identity of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with enforcement of the law.” Roviano v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957). The informant’s privilege is designed to protect from retaliation individuals who give information to the government during investigations. The government often asserts the privilege during litigation against an employer to protect the individuals from whom it gathered information.

The privilege can create difficulty for an employer preparing for trial because the employer may not have access to potentially relevant information that it could use to defend the case. For example, a non-testifying individual may have given the government a statement that contradicts what a testifying witness will say at trial.

Fortunately, the government-informant privilege is not absolute. Where an informant’s identity is “essential to the fair determination of the case,” the government may be forced to reveal the informant’s name and the substance of the informant’s statement.

As trial approached in this case, the government produced statements from the individuals who appeared on its trial witness list, but it refused to produce anything from individuals from whom it obtained statements but would not be trial witnesses. The employers argued that this was unfair because the non-trial witnesses’ statements could contain information helpful to them in preparing to cross-examine the individuals who would testify during trial.

The district court agreed with the employers and ordered the government to produce several unredacted statements. After reviewing the statements at issue in camera, the court determined that several of the statements from non-witnesses referenced individuals who would be trial witnesses. Accordingly, the court found those statements would be relevant to trial preparation and the employers’ interest in having them outweighed the government’s interest in protecting its informants.

Lesson: Employers preparing for trial against the government should be aware the government may be withholding statements that could be helpful in defending against the government’s allegations. Employers should be prepared to seek court relief to ensure full access to relevant information.

Jury Finds Against Female Physician’s Unequal Pay Claims

A federal jury in Iowa has rejected Equal Pay Act claims by a female physician alleging she was paid less than her male colleagues in the same network for performing substantially equal work under the same compensation formula. Bertroche v. Mercy Physician Assoc., Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00059 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 13, 2019).

The jury also found the physician network that employed her did not breach her employment agreement. After a six-day trial, the federal jury deliberated for less than three hours before delivering a complete defense verdict.

Please find the rest of this article on our Healthcare Workplace Update here.

Importance of Properly Documenting Workplace Investigations

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upholding termination of a state trooper for “hitting on” female drivers during traffic stops and breaching his Last Chance Agreement highlights the importance for employers to document investigations into employee misconduct and the reasons for any resulting discipline – or non-discipline.

In Johnson v. Ohio Department of Public Safety, No. 18-4181 (6th Cir. Nov. 13, 2019), the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer on an African-American state trooper’s claim that he was unlawfully terminated because of his race.

The trooper was fired for inappropriate conduct with female motorists whom he pulled over. While arresting a female motorist for drunk driving, the trooper asked the woman out to a restaurant. A month later, the trooper spotted the same woman driving, pulled her over without probable cause, asked her out to a casino, and gave her his phone number.

After the Department recommended termination, the trooper signed a Last Chance Agreement (LCA), agreeing that he would be terminated for any further similar behavior. Subsequently, the officer pulled over another intoxicated female motorist, drove her home without activating his in-car camera, stayed at her home for more than 30 minutes after radioing his station that he was leaving, and later texted the woman from his personal phone. He was fired for violating the LCA. The trooper sued for unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

To advance his discrimination claim, the plaintiff compared himself to a white trooper who was investigated for befriending female traffic stop detainees, but received only a one-day suspension. The Sixth Circuit found the investigative records showed many differences between the two officers’ conduct that indisputably showed their conduct was not of comparable seriousness. For example, the Department could not substantiate an allegation that the white trooper tried to “friend request” female detainees on social media, so he was simply warned. Three years later, the white trooper talked to a female detainee about personal matters during a traffic stop and, later, while off-duty, sent her a social media friend request. He was suspended for one day.

An investigation confirmed the plaintiff’s first instance of misconduct, his infractions were committed while on-duty and in uniform, his interactions were with intoxicated women, and he went to one woman’s home. Further, the trooper had signed a written LCA. In contrast, the first allegation against the white officer was uncorroborated, he was off-duty when he sent his friend request, the women involved were not intoxicated, and he had not signed an LCA.

Documenting investigations and resulting levels of discipline or non-discipline is key. Employers cannot predict which employees will be named as comparators by another employee who is disciplined and files a claim. Well-documented investigations, including those that are inconclusive or result in minor or no discipline, can later help demonstrate indisputable reasons for differing levels of discipline for different employees. Further, detailed investigative files help witnesses recall important facts when they testify at depositions that take place years after the incident. The time taken to properly document investigations can benefit employers later.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist in workplace investigations and litigations.

“Me Too” Evidence in a #MeToo World

Before “#MeToo” became a movement, it was a well-known, damaging type of evidence to employers litigating discrimination claims.  “Me too” in the employment litigation context refers to evidence that employees other than the plaintiff also were also discriminated against. Employers had traditionally sought, with mixed results, to exclude such evidence as improper character evidence under FRE 404(b) or as substantially more prejudicial than probative under FRE 403.  Debate raged over admissibility. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court tackled the issue and held that “me too” evidence is not per se admissible or inadmissible.  See Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 388 (2008). Rather, the Court found, admissibility depends on a fact-intensive inquiry.

In deciding on admissibility, courts consider whether other discriminatory behavior is close in time to the events at issue, whether the same decision maker is involved, and whether the “me too” witness and plaintiff were treated similarly. See Hayes v. Sebelius, 806 F. Supp. 2d 141, 144-45 (D.D.C. 2011). Typically when a court admits “me too” evidence, the court concludes that the evidence may show motive or intent to discriminate.

“Me too” evidence is powerful.  Even if only one witness testifies that he/she also experienced the same kind of mistreatment, the jury impact can be profoundly damaging to the defense.  So what is an employer facing “me too” evidence to do?

Three Suggestions:

  1. Distinguish: Identify the potential “me too” witnesses early in discovery. Try to show how different they are from the plaintiff and thus not “similarly situated.” Every difference helps show that any probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under FRE 403.
  2. Mini-Trials: When multiple “me too” witnesses exist, consider the mini-trial argument under FRE 403. That is, if the court allows evidence about alleged mistreatment of others, the employer will have to defend each vigorously, wasting time and introducing needlessly cumulative evidence.
  3. Join ‘em: Identify in discovery whether the employer may have “not me” comparator evidence to combat “me too” evidence. “Not me” evidence may refer to evidence of other, similarly situated employees within the plaintiff’s protected class who were not subjected to alleged mistreatment/adverse action.  It may also refer to employees outside the plaintiff’s protected class who are similarly situated to the plaintiff and were treated in the same or similar way.  This suggestion may require an employer to take a broader-than-usual view of discovery because the helpful “not me” evidence may originate in other locations within the organization outside what might normally be considered a reasonable scope of discovery.  For example, assume the plaintiff is fired for violating a company-wide policy against personal cell phone use.  If the employer fired other employees outside the plaintiff’s protected class for the same thing, the employer may want to use that evidence to rebut an inference of discrimination, even if the other employees are located in different locations/states from the plaintiff.  Ordinarily, the employer might not agree to a multi-state scope of discovery.  But the benefit of having this “not me” evidence admitted may outweigh the costs associated with broader discovery.  Employers should carefully consider this decision with the help of counsel.


The #metoo era presents significant challenges for organizations facing “me too” evidence in employment litigation. Addressing it early in discovery can help improve the likelihood of success at summary judgment, motions in limine, and trial.

New Jersey Prohibits Enforcement of Non-Disclosure Provisions in Settlement Agreements, Other Contracts

A sweeping amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) bars enforcement of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements and employment contracts, and prohibits the waiver of substantive and procedural rights under the statute. The amendment applies to all contracts and agreements entered into, renewed, modified, or amended on or after the effective date, March 18, 2019.


The amendment has the practical effect of prohibiting typical confidentiality provisions that accompany settlements of LAD claims. The amendment provides that non-disclosure provisions in employment contracts and settlement agreements are against public policy, and deemed to be unenforceable against a current or former employee if they have “the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.”

Under the amendment, every settlement agreement resolving a LAD discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claim by an employee against an employer must include a bold and prominently placed notice stating that “although the parties may have agreed to keep the settlement and underlying facts confidential, such a provision in an agreement is unenforceable against the employer if the employee publicly reveals sufficient details of the claim so that the employer is reasonably identifiable.”

In addition to the practical impact of the amended LAD regarding confidentiality of settlement terms, employers should determine whether existing contracts and agreements contain waivers of procedural and substantive rights guaranteed by LAD. The amendment provides that “[a] provision in any employment contract that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable.” The amendment further provides that “[n]o right or remedy under the [LAD] or any other statute or case law shall be prospectively waived.”

This language likely will lead to litigation over the effectiveness of jury-waiver provisions and agreements to arbitrate LAD claims against an employer on or after the effective date of the amendment. While what impact the amendment will have on arbitration is unclear, legal challenge is expected as the amendment appears to conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act, which preempts state law that prohibits the use of arbitration agreements. See AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 341 (2011) (“When state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA.”).

In addition, if an employer seeks to enforce a provision prohibited by the new law, aggrieved employees may file suit in New Jersey state court to recover common law tort remedies, in addition to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the filing.


Given the broad language in the amendment and its effect on all types of agreements relating to employment (even severance agreements after assertion of LAD claims), it is important that employers seek guidance regarding modifying settlement agreements when resolving LAD claims with current or former employees, and reviewing employment contracts and other agreements that may conflict with the new law.

The Legislature introduced the amendment at the height of the #MeToo movement, after news reports revealed that settlement agreements of high-profile cases involving well-known entertainment and media personalities accused of sexual harassment included non-disclosure provisions. The amendment’s supporters in the Legislature have praised the amendment for allowing purported victims of unlawful conduct to discuss their claims publicly. Critics note that the promise of confidentiality that incentivized many employers and employees to resolve discrimination, harassment, or retaliation claims through settlement has largely been eliminated by this amendment.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer questions regarding the LAD and to assist employers in achieving compliance with its requirements.