Chakravarti v. Pegasus Consulting Group, Inc., 393 N.J. Super. 203 (App. Div. March 9, 2007).

Attorney’s Fees should not be reduced for efficient pleading and trial court rightfully struck Pegasus’ Answer for failure to answer discovery.  In Chakravarti, the appellate division found the trial court in error when they decided to reduce the Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and felt that the Defendant received too much process with regard to their due process arguments concerning a proof hearing. 

Sternadori v. SCS Healthcare Marketing, Inc., 2007 WL 710298 (E.D. Pa., March 6, 2007).

Under New Jersey Wage Payment Law, an employee may collect wages due for the labor or services rendered for an employer, but are not eligible to any statutory or punitive damages. In Sternadori, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania confirmed well established law that even though an employee may bring an action against an employer for the employer’s breach of Wage Payment Law, the employee may not collect any further damages other than the wages due for his or her labor or service, except for the limited situation where the employer violated the law in bad faith or willfully.

Smith v. Tyco International, Inc., 2007 WL 1039067 (April 9,2007).

When interpreting a provision of a termination agreement with regard to vacation pay, a court may look at the employer’s general vacation policy to consider the guidelines of compensating an employee for vacation days. In Smith, the Superior Court of New Jersey-Appellate Division agreed with the lower court’s ruling when defendant, who paid plaintiff for his vacation days in proportion to his employment period after he was terminated from his employment, did not breach the termination agreement. The Appellate Division found that the actual language of the termination agreement, in conjunction with the employer’s general vacation policy, justified the vacation pay given to an employee in proportion to his actual employment period.

Gorman v. The Consolidated Edison Corporation, 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir., May 30, 2007).

Certain procedures, which are otherwise considered an essential requirement to perform while working, are not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  In Gorman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that employees are not entitled to wage compensation for time spent on activities that are neither authorized by the employer nor an integral and indispensable part thereof.