In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit ruled in favor of class certification. The Court agreed with the district court that "it would be better to handle some parts of this case as a class action instead of clogging the federal courts with innumerable individual suits litigating the same issues repeatedly." Boutrous says the certification and the claims for monetary damages violate due process and federal rules of civil procedure, and conflict with other circuits and Supreme Court precedents.

Employment lawyers in New Jersey and other parts of the country will be following this case closely. Sex discrimination suits are actionable in both federal and state courts. In New Jersey these claims are actionable under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

The court rejected arguments from the city's employment lawyers that the trial courts had erroneously granted summary judgment to Elliot Stomel on a civil-rights claim, wrongly treated him as an at-will employee and should have dismissed his claim for punitive damages under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act.

Stomel served as a part-time public defender for Camden from 1982, being reappointed by the mayor and council to one-year terms, until he was denied reappointment in 1999.

The Plaintiff was represented by Friedman & Friedman. The Defendant was represented by Jackson Lewis.

Prior to leaving her employment with the Loving Care Agency and filing a discrimination lawsuit through her employment lawyers, Marina Stengart exchanged e-mail communications with her lawyer. She utilized her personal email account. Her employer obtained the e-mails and used them in the preparation of their defense to her discrimination lawsuit. The trial court had ruled that the former employee waived the attorney-client privilege by sending the e-mails on a company computer. The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the decision, ruling that Loving Care's employment attorneys had violated privacy laws.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Stengart could have reasonably expected the e-mails would remain private.

In McCann v. Trump Marina, Inc., App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Plaintiff Robert McCann appealed summary judgment dismissal of his employment discrimination action against defendants. McCann, along with his department, were laid off by defendant Trump Marina, Inc., a hotel and casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey, due to a financial crisis. McCann filed a lawsuit alleging that he had been terminated in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. He had also alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, and retaliation. The appellate panel affirmed summary judgment. The panel found there was no credible evidence that Trump Marina's broad-based staff reduction was a ruse or screen for termination of McCann based on race or gender discrimination, or retaliation. The panel found that while some employees were rehired or placed elsewhere, the Trial Judge correctly determined that there was no credible evidence that McCann requested either. Further, Judge Blue correctly concluded that there was no credible evidence that conduct by a security guard was motivated by a discriminatory animus or was the result of an action by McCann's co-workers.

The First, Third, Fifth and Ninth circuits have upheld the cat's paw claim where the terminated employee was able to prove that a biased worker actually influenced the final decision. However, the Fourth Circuit has held that if the final decision-maker's motive is pure, an employer cannot be held liable for a subordinate's alleged bias. The 10th Circuit actually requires evidence that the biased subordinate caused the firing or demotion through his discriminatory recommendations, reports or actions.

Through her human-resources position, plaintiff Joyce Quinlan copied more than 1,800 pages of the company's personnel files, including salary records. She handed the files over to her lawyer in support of her suit. The trial judge instructed the jury that it was permissible for the lawyer to use the confidential company documents and that the company could not fire the plaintiff on that basis. The Appellate Division reversed. The New Jersey Appellate Division found that the trial court judge improperly distinguished between copying the documents and using them in litigation.

The New Jersey Law Journal says that Levinson Axelrod has retained their own attorney. According to the New Jersey Law Journal, Levenson hired Thomas Cafferty of Scarinci Hollenbeck in Lyndhurst. Levinson's lawyer plans to file suit shortly over Heyburn's website.

How could this have been avoided? The answer is simple if you ask a New Jersey employment lawyer. Levinson should have realized the potential damage a former associate lawyer can create when leaving a firm. Had the Levinson Firm offered Mr. Harrington a modest severance, the Firm could have obtained a standard non-disparagement clause in the severance agreement. Any violation of the clause could have been stopped by way of an injunction. I guess an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of gold"