The Rutgers Law Record

On August 8, 2019, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued three opinion letters, which are official, written opinions composed by the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL, that interpret “how a particular law applies in specific circumstances presented by the individual person or entity that requested the letter.” Two of the letters released in August 2019 addressed compliance issues related to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and the third letter addressed a compliance issue related to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). FMLA2019-2-A, the letter regarding compliance with the FMLA, responded to an employee’s request for an opinion on “whether an employee may take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to attend a Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting to discuss the Individualized Education Program (IEP) of the employee’s son or daughter.” Based on the facts presented by the requesting employee, the Wage and Hour Division concluded that attendance at such meetings is indeed a qualifying reason to take intermittent leave under the FMLA.

This paper analyzes the conclusion presented in the above-detailed opinion letter and explores why a parent should undoubtedly be able to take leave under the FMLA to attend meetings concerning their child’s educational and special medical needs. Further, this paper seeks to explore why a parent’s attendance at such meetings constitutes essential care for a family member with a serious health condition within the meaning of the FMLA. Finally, this paper seeks to explain the implications of FMLA2019-2-A on employers. Although DOL opinion letters are not binding, it is essential for employers to treat this opinion as if it were in order to promote the well-being of employees with children who are entitled to special education services in public schools.

View the entire article –>

This note seeks to analyze the issue of whether, under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, willful infringement should be a prerequisite for an award of an infringer’s profits for a violation of Section 43 of the Lanham Act, 15 USC § 1125. This note argues in favor of the bright-line rule requiring that a plaintiff prove willful infringement as a prerequisite for a court to grant the remedy of infringer’s profits in instances of trademark infringement arguing a likelihood of confusion. In doing so, this note will consider the legislative intent behind the Act, analysis of relevant precedential case law, and the effective outcome of such a decision. For the purposes of this note, “trademark infringement” is synonymous with a likelihood of confusion action.

View the entire article –>

The recent Johnson & Johnson case decided in Oklahoma is one where the courts decided that the solution to societies’ frustration over the opioid crisis was to give society what they wanted: a bad guy to blame and then hang.The court picked Johnson & Johnson, railroaded the company with questionable legal analysis and then made sure at the end of the trail the bad guy would be hung to the cheers of the crowds.This paper looks at the consequences of allowing the legal system to forego its duty and side with the mob simply to be a hero. This paper will examine how the courts mislead the mob and why they did it, and why by allegedly solving this crisis, they may have created an even bigger problem.

View the entire article –>

In New York City, the State of New Jersey and around the nation, the housing market has seen a general decline in home ownership. Due to a host of economic and cultural reasons, Millennials and other generations alike are choosing to rent more and buy less. With a likely economic recession looming ahead due to the COVID-19 global pandemic shutdowns, it is unlikely that this housing trend will reverse. This paper seeks to analyze various challenges and abuses that many tenants in tri-state area housing market encounter and the existing legal framework in place to resolve such challenges. The State of New Jersey has been a leader in advancing consumer protection since the 1970s and has adopted a strong stance towards tenants’ rights laws. The Truth-in-Renting, the Implied Warranty of Habitability and a developed statutory framework for individuals facing eviction proceedings are just a few examples of the advanced infrastructure which exists in New Jersey. This paper seeks to investigate the challenges that tenants may face from the formation of the lease contract to completion of a residential lease and post-tenancy procedures. While New Jersey has a protective legal structure to shield tenants from landlord harassment, there is a gap between the available rights and the tenants’ ability to defend themselves on the basis of these rights.
View the entire article –>

As online advertising for employment is becoming increasingly popular, it begs the question: how do employers target employee prospects, and are those practices violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Online job advertisements are shown to users and viewers based upon individual interests, just like online advertisements for clothing, housing, and other products. This is done through an algorithm; employers can decide who to target based on interests and “categories” of people, such as race, gender, age, etc. Such practices give effect to stereotyping, which is clearly not a plausible indication of people’s qualifications and skills for employment purposes. Employers want their advertisements shown to those they believe are best qualified for the job. This could have negative consequences for people who may be qualified for the job in question, but are not targeted by the employer. This note will look specifically at the potential disparate impact on women, who, in particular circumstances, are not shown employment advertisements for jobs that they are qualified for because they were not targeted by the employer.

View the entire article –>