How to Avoid Rule 23 'Commonality' in Class Action Employment Litigation
February 28, 2006
In many class action cases, plaintiffs seek to certify a class encompassing thousands of employees across multiple facilities and job titles. Fortunately for employers, before such a broad class can be certified, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires plaintiffs to establish, among other things, that there are common questions of law or fact among the proposed class members (the "commonality test"). This article assesses whether and to what extent employers can defeat class certification based upon the existence of a decentralized, subjective decision-making. After surveying the pertinent case-law in the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits over the past 10 years, we offer practical guidelines that employers may use to avoid the certification of broad classes.
Implied Renewal of Employment Agreements
February 28, 2006
Employers frequently enter into employment agreements with their employees for a fixed period of time at a stated annual salary. What happens if at the end of such an agreement's term both parties continue to perform under the expired employment agreement as if the agreement were still in effect? As we discuss in this article, in a majority of states, there are certain circumstances in which a court may presume the employment agreement is automatically renewed for an additional term. In such states, courts have recognized such implied renewals and have permitted employees to sue for breach of contract based upon a theory of discharge without cause during the renewal term. We also analyze how courts have addressed the enforceability of noncompetition or arbitration agreements following termination of employment after expiration of the original agreement, but during a period when an impliedly renewed agreement is in effect. Finally, we explore several considerations for drafting employment agreements to avoid unexpected results arising from the presumption of implied renewal.
Index
February 28, 2006
Everything contained in this issue, for quick reference.
Development
February 28, 2006
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
<i>Caveat Emptor</i> in the Purchase of New York Real Estate
February 28, 2006
Under New York law, the doctrine of <i>caveat emptor</i>, or buyer beware, applies to the purchase and sale of real property. <i>Stambovsky v. Ackley</i>, 169 AD2d 254, 257. Under this doctrine, which has undergone some recent modifications, the seller of real property is under no duty to speak (<i>ie</i>, make certain disclosures to the purchaser) concerning the condition of the property when the parties deal at arms' length. <i>Id</i>. Mere silence on the part of the seller concerning a defective or otherwise undesirable condition of the property, without some act or conduct that deceived the purchaser, does not amount to conduct that is actionable as a fraud.
