Jill Rosenberg, a New York Employment partner, is a nationally recognized employment litigator and counselor. Ms. Rosenberg has significant experience defending and advising employers in discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblowing, wrongful discharge, affirmative action, wage-and-hour and traditional labor matters. She handles complex individual cases, as well as class actions and systemic government investigations. She represents a broad range of companies, including employers in the securities industry, banks and financial institutions, accounting firms, law firms, and employers in the food service and publishing industries. Ms. Rosenberg also has particular expertise in the representation of nonprofit entities, including colleges, universities, hospitals, foundations and cultural institutions. Her notable engagements include:
- Employment Arbitrations for Securities Industry Employers. Ms. Rosenberg has tried to decision more than 30 employment arbitrations before FINRA (formerly NASD and NYSE), JAMS and AAA involving claims for bonuses and other forms of compensation, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, discrimination and whistleblowing/retaliation. She has also litigated important issues in the field of arbitration, including the permissibility of mandatory arbitration, the scope of judicial review of arbitration awards and the availability of certain remedies.
- Higher Education Litigation. Ms. Rosenberg was lead trial counsel representing a university in a federal court jury trial involving allegations of gender discrimination arising out of a denial of tenure. This two-week trial resulted in a defense verdict for our client, which was upheld on appeal by the Second Circuit. Ms. Rosenberg also counsels and litigates on behalf of higher education clients with regard to Title IX athletics compliance, student discipline, sexual harassment, disabilities issues, and other issues unique to higher education settings.
- Whistleblower Defense. Ms. Rosenberg frequently defends employers against Sarbanes-Oxley and other whistleblower and retaliation claims. She is also retained by employers to conduct internal investigations and advise on whistleblowing and retaliation issues.
She designs and conducts training programs for clients and frequently speaks on employment law issues for employer and bar association groups such as National Employment Law Institute, Practising Law Institute, ORC, National Association of College and University Attorneys and the New York State Bar Association.
Ms. Rosenberg is the firmwide Partner in Charge of Pro Bono Programs, and serves on the firm's Personnel Development, Risk Management, and Diversity Committees.
Before joining the firm, Ms. Rosenberg was an associate at Baer Marks & Upham in New York from 1986 to 1991.
A recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down several recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board has cast doubt over one of the NLRB’s most controversial decisions from 2012.
In Noel Canning v. NLRB, F. 3d (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013), the D.C. Circuit held that President Obama lacked constitutional authority to use recess appointments to name three new members to the NLRB because the vacancies did not arise, and the appointments were not made, during a “Recess of the Senate,” which is defined as “the period between sessions that would end with the ensuing session of the Senate.” Slip op. at 18; 39-40. As a result, the court held that the NLRB lacked a quorum when it decided the underlying case, rendering its decision void ab initio.
The holding in Noel Canning raises questions about the viability of In re D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB 184 – 2012, one of the most widely discussed NLRB decisions of 2012. In D.R. Horton, the Board held that arbitration clauses that prohibit employees from pursuing class or collective actions violate employee rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) to engage in protected concerted activity. D.R. Horton’s appeal will be heard by the Fifth Circuit on February 4.
D.R. Horton was decided the day before President Obama made the recess appointments at issue in Noel Canning. However, Craig Becker, one of the three NLRB members who decided D.R. Horton, was the subject of an earlier recess appointment in 2010. D.R. Horton filed a letter with the Fifth Circuit on January 29, 2013, arguing that the holding in Noel Canning should be applied to Becker’s appointment and render the decision void. The Fifth Circuit is expected to address this issue together with D.R. Horton’s existing arguments during oral argument on February 4.
In a divided opinion published on December 4th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit provided a reminder that employers should always be prepared to substantiate representations made during labor negotiations and clarified the scope of disclosure obligations for employers relying on competitive pressures as a basis for seeking concessions. In KLB Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 11-1280 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the employer justified proposed wage concessions by citing, among other things, heightened competition from foreign manufacturers. Union representatives requested an array of information to test the employer’s claim, but the employer largely refused.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the National Labor Relations Board that the employer’s refusal constituted an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act, which requires employers to furnish relevant information that unions need to perform their role as bargaining representatives. The court found that once an employer makes specific claims of “competitive disadvantage” in labor negotiations, bargaining representatives are entitled to request specific information tailored to verify those claims. In so doing, the court rejected the suggestion—made by the employer and endorsed by the dissent—that “competitive disadvantage” claims are exempt from these liberal disclosure obligations.
Have questions? With Orrick’s expertise in traditional labor law, we can help you in navigating union-management relationships and in responding to unfair labor practice charges.
As the new year rounds the corner, it is important to stay abreast of the ever-changing legal landscape in California. We’ve previously posted about some recent amendments to the California Labor Code here but here are a couple of others that take effect on January 1, 2013 that employers should keep on their radars. Read More
On September 7, 2012, Governor Cuomo signed a law that will relax some of the stringent prohibitions against wage deductions under New York Law. Beginning on November 6, 2012, the law will now permit employers, with voluntary employee consent, to take wage deductions for certain employee benefits such as health club membership dues and cafeteria purchases. (See Amendment to New York’s Labor Law Expands the Universe of Permissible Wage Deductions) Significantly, Section 193 of the New York Labor Law will now allow employers to take wage deductions to recoup overpayments of wages due to mathematical or clerical errors. However, the New York Department of Labor is expected to issue regulations on how these overpayments will be allowed to be deducted. The amendment also imposes heightened requirements on the type of notice and authorizations that employers must obtain from their employees before taking any of the newly authorized deductions, and employers will be expected to keep those authorizations for their employees’ entire career and for six years after the end of employment. Even with these hurdles, employers will welcome this reprieve from New York’s restrictive wage deduction laws. Click here to read the full alert.
Earlier this year, in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 6, 2012), the National Labor Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) held that mandatory arbitration agreements requiring all employment disputes to be resolved through individual, bilateral arbitration violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) because such agreements impermissibly restrict employees’ rights under Section 7 to engage in “concerted action for mutual aid or protection.” Although some courts have already rejected D.R. Horton (see e.g., opinion from S.D.N.Y., opinion from M.D. Fla. and opinion from California State Court) two recent pronouncements call into question additional, commonly used and accepted employment practices after finding they also had a “chilling effect” on employees’ right to engage in protected, concerted activity. Even though it remains to be seen whether these decisions will survive full Board and/or appellate court review, their rationale applies to union and non-union workplaces, and both decisions are worth reviewing now for the impact they may have on employer practices in these and other areas. Read More
The case of Ryan v. Kellogg Partners Institutional Services, presents a scenario familiar to many employers – a former employee claims that he is entitled to bonus compensation based upon oral assurances he was given by senior management, while his employer responds that the employee has no right to any bonus because bonuses are discretionary. Despite upholding the employee’s claim for a bonus, the New York Court of Appeals in Ryan actually reaffirmed the well-established New York principle that employees have no legal right to unvested, discretionary bonuses. Significantly, the Court of Appeals confirmed that properly drafted discretionary bonus policies could vitiate a bonus claim, but that the at-will statements in the employment application and handbook that Kellogg was relying upon simply did not meet the standard. The Ryan Court also restated its previous holding in Truelove v. Northeast Capital & Advisory, explaining that discretionary bonuses linked to an employer’s financial success do not constitute “wages” under the New York Labor Law, and that a bonus does not vest and become earned until the conditions of the employer’s bonus plan are met, which may include the requirement that the employee be employed by the employer at the time the bonus is paid.