|
 |
Contact:
Nina McCann
Director of Public Relations
Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schwartz, Mineo, Cohn & Terrana, LLP
516-248-1700
nmccann@ForchelliLaw.com
Partner Russell G. Tisman Listed
in 2010, “Who’s Who in Labor Law,” by Long
Island Business News
Long Island Business News 2/26/10
Uniondale, February 26, 2010 — Partner
Russell G. Tisman is featured in the Long Island
Business News listing of “Who’s
Who in Labor Law.” In the article,
Mr. Tisman discusses legislative initiatives that have
taken place that employers should be aware of.
“Two pieces of pending legislation highlight attempts
to further expand employee rights under federal employment
discrimination laws. The ADEA
Mixed Motive Act (H.R. 3721; S. 1756) attempts to overturn the Supreme Court’s
decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., ___ U.S. ___,
129 S.Ct. 2343 (2009), which held that mixed motive claims are never permissible
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Unlike Title VII, where
an employer must show in a mixed motive case that it would have made the same
employment decision in the absence of the discriminatory motivation, an age
discrimination plaintiff has the burden of proving that age was the “but-for” reason. This
pro-plaintiff legislation would extend the lesser burden of proof under Title
VII to age discrimination claims,” notes Tisman.
He concludes, “The Title VII Fairness Act (S. 166)
would extend the statute of limitations in all employment
discrimination cases. Under current law, as reflected
in Miller v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp.,
755 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1985), a case I handled, the time
to file a charge, and the statute of limitations, run from
the date an allegedly discriminatory act occurs. Under
this act the statute would commence when an employee reasonably
suspects or should suspect that discrimination has occurred. Under
current law employers have a degree of certainty in determining
if a claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The
Title VII Fairness Act will inject uncertainty because
of the subjectiveness involved in determining when an employee “should
suspect” that discrimination tainted an employment
decision.”
Russell G. Tisman specializes in complex corporate,
commercial, defense, employment, labor and Surrogate's
Court litigation. He has tried cases and argued appeals
in Federal and State courts and administrative agencies
throughout the United States, and in arbitration and other
alternate dispute resolution fora. Mr. Tisman also
actively counsels management and human resource professionals
on employment and labor matters. He represents public
companies, privately held businesses, insurers, financial
institutions and individuals in all types of business related
disputes.
For more information on the listing, please visit
www.libn.com.
|
|
|
