News & Insights

What’s the Law? Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine in Internal Investigations

Archer attorneys, Peter Frattarelli and Simone Adkins, co-authored the New Jersey Lawyer article, “What’s the Law? Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine in Internal Investigations.” The attorney-client privilege analysis is never an easy one when internal investigations are conducted. In their article, Peter and Simone discuss navigating the complex waters of internal investigations when employers rely on the assistance of counsel. Often questions and confusion revolve around knowing what aspects of the investigation may be protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, and outside the scope of discovery. New Jersey courts have evaluated this issue and developed an outline of how to address these situations. To read the complete article, click here. ...read more

Delaware Court Latest to Point the Twitter Finger: Tweets Can Constitute Actionable Expressions of Fact

Delaware Court Latest to Point the Twitter Finger_ Tweets Can Constitute Actionable Expressions of Fact By: Amy Pearl, John C. Connell, and Peter L. Frattarelli, MLCR (January 2022) ...read more

Suit Over Flatulent Pork Roll Employee Raises Rare ADA Claim

Peter Frattarelli, the chair of the labor and employment department at Archer & Greiner in Haddonfield, was quoted in this New Jersey Law Journal article.   ...read more

Pennsylvania Federal Court is Latest Court Refusing to Halt FTC's Non-Compete Ban

In late July 2024, a Pennsylvania federal judge declined an employer’s request to enjoin the Federal Trade Commission’s non-compete Rule, which imposes a comprehensive ban on non-competes with most employees. This ruling is the latest court that declined to stop the FTC near-total ban on non-compete agreements, which is still set to take effect on September 4, 2024. Despite this, other federal courts will have more opportunities before September 4th to stop the FTC’s ban, so stay tuned. In this case, ATS Tree Services LLC v. Federal Trace, a tree-care company with twelve employees, who required its employees to sign non-compete agreements, sought to stop the FTC’s non-compete prohibition Rule. The tree company’s agreements prohibited the employees from working for direct competitors following separation in the geographic area the employee worked for one year.The court denied the injunction for two reasons: a lack of “irreparable harm” and an unlikelihood of winning the case on the merits. As to irreparable harm, the Court ruled that costs of compliance with the Rule – such as the expenses of sending out notices, attorney’s fees, and having to scale back specialized training – were nothing more than minimal costs, and were not sufficient to justify an injunction. The Court also felt that the risk of losing employees was merely speculative and a “risk” of irreparable harm is not enough. Perhaps more significant is the second part of the Court’s analysis, which concluded that the tree company was not likely to be successful on the merits of its claim that the FTC was acting outside of its authority. The Court found it “clear that the FTC is empowered to make both procedural and substantive rules as is necessary to prevent unfair methods of competition.” Further, the Court found that it has been well-demonstrated that Congress intended “to retain the existing authority empowering the FTC to prevent unfair methods of competition, and the discretion to determine the appropriate mechanisms to accomplish that directive.” In reaching this finding, the Court relied upon the FTC’s historical substantive rulemaking and Congress’s inaction of limiting the FTC’s substantive authority in the past, despite the opportunities to do so. Finally, the Court ruled that overlapping jurisdiction between state and federal governments in in this area also does not preclude the FTC from issuing rules to prevent unfair methods of competition. This is so, according to the Court, because parallel state laws are not entirely preempted, and conflicting state laws are rightfully preempted as the FTC is empowered to prevent “unfair methods of competition.” As of now, the Rule will take effect on September 04, 2024. Yet, as we have explained, several other legal challenges are pending, and one of more of them is expected to be decided before September 4th. So, an injunction or hold on the FTC’s Rule may still happen before the deadline. Our firm has issued a number of prior alerts on FTC’s Non-Compete Rule. Please see:  ...read more

The "Ban-Wagon" Has Arrived in Pennsylvania Banning Many Non-Competes for Health Care Practitioners

Governor Josh Shapiro has signed the “Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioner’s Act” (“the Act”), Pennsylvania’s first statute imposing limitations on the use of non-competes in the Commonwealth. Pennsylvania joins the growing list of a dozen states which have enacted legislative bans or limitations on healthcare provider non-competition agreements in recent years.The Act, which becomes effective January 1, 2025, represents the legislature’s response to the current trend of health system consolidation and direct health care practitioner employment, and is a seismic shift in the enforcement of non-compete covenants entered into between Pennsylvania employers and healthcare practitioners. Subject to certain exceptions, a “noncompete covenant” entered into after January 1, 2025 is “deemed contrary to the public policy and is void and unenforceable by an employer.” A “noncompete covenant” is defined as an “agreement that is entered into between an employer and a healthcare practitioner in this Commonwealth which has the effect of impeding the ability of the healthcare practitioner to continue treating patients or accepting new patients, either practicing independently or in the employment of a competing employer after the term of employment.” A “healthcare practitioner” is defined under statute and includes a medical doctor, a doctor of osteopathy, a certified registered nurse anesthetist and certified nurse practitioner, and a physician’s assistant.The Act does provide several specific exceptions. First, an employer may enforce a noncompete covenant if the length of the noncompete covenant is no more than one year, provided that the healthcare practitioner was not dismissed by the employer. Second, a noncompete covenant can be enforced as to a healthcare practitioner in ”(a) the sale of the healthcare practitioner’s ownership interest in, or all or substantially all of the assets of, the business entity; (b) a transaction resulting in the sale, transfer or other disposition of the control of the business entity; or (c) the healthcare practitioner’s receipt of an ownership interest in the business entity. However, a preexisting noncompete covenant may be rendered void and unenforceable if a healthcare practitioner is not a party to the sale, transfer or other disposition. Third, an employer may enforce contractual provisions that allow the employer to recover reasonable expenses from a healthcare practitioner, if the expenses are: (a) directly attributable to the healthcare practitioner and accrued within the three years prior to separation, unless separation is caused by dismissal of the healthcare practitioner; (b) related to relocation, training and establishment of a patient base; or (c) amortized over a period of up to five years from the date of separation by the healthcare practitioner.To ensure continuity of care between patients and providers, the Act requires employers to notify patients of a departing healthcare practitioner within 90 days following the departure of a healthcare practitioner from an employer. The employer must notify the healthcare practitioner’s patients seen within the past year of (a) the healthcare practitioner’s departure; (b) how the patient, if desired, may transfer the patient’s health records to the departed healthcare practitioner; and (c) that the patient, if desired, may be assigned to a new healthcare practitioner within the existing employer, to continue receiving care there.Archer's Labor & Employment Group will continue to monitor the impact of the Act when it takes effect in 2025 and thereafter, as the Act specifically mandates that by December 31, 2027, the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council perform a study on the effects of the Act, and report its findings. For any questions, please reach out to Peter Frattarelli, Chair of the Labor & Employment Group, at 856.354.3012 or pfrattarelli@archerlaw.com, Thomas Muccifori, Chair of the Trade Secret Protection & Restrictive Covenants Group, at 856.354.3056 or tmuccifori@archerlaw.com, or Lisa Albright, Partner in the Healthcare Group, at 609.580.3710 or lalbright@archerlaw.com.DISCLAIMER: This client advisory is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute legal or tax advice, and may not be used and relied upon as a substitute for legal or tax advice regarding a specific issue or problem. Advice should be obtained from a qualified attorney or tax practitioner licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where that advice is sought.  ...read more

NLRB Signals Intent to Invalidate Many Employee Non-Compete Agreements

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)’s General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, sent a strong signal that the Board will be attempting to invalidate many employee non-compete agreements, as part of its power to enforce the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Although it remains to be seen if this position will be upheld in litigation, the message is clear that the NLRB plans to try and invalidate most employee non-compete agreements entered into with non-supervisors or non-managers. ...read more

Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace

In speaking to New Jersey Business Magazine about predictive measures every employer must have regarding harassment and discrimination in the workplace, partner Peter L. Frattarelli spoke about formal procedures. Chair of Archer's Labor & Employment Group, Peter said, "Employers  need to lay out a complaint procedure that employees can use to the extent they feel that they’re a witness to a harasser and/or they are a victim of harassment. Employees should be allowed to complain to pretty much anybody in the organization who’s in a position of authority." ...read more

Lawyers Weigh 'Right to Disconnect' During Remote Work

In the ALM.COM article, "Lawyers Weigh 'Right to Disconnect' During Remote Work," partner Peter Frattarelli was asked for his thoughts on employers after-hours communications with their employees. Some jurisdictions are considering penalties for bosses who require workers to reply to their late-night calls, emails and text messages. There is a measure pending in New Jersey's General Assembly establishing a fine for employers who continually do this. ...read more

Unanswered Questions on Remote Work Complicate NJ Wage Transparency Law, Litigators Say

Labor & Employment Group Chair, Peter L. Frattarelli, spoke with the New Jersey Law Journal regarding the wage transparency legislation saying he will advise clients on two main priorities to meet before New Jersey’s version of the law takes effect on June 1. He noted employers need to be ready to comply with the new law by the effective date, adding that any pay disparity between employees needs to be justified because of this new legislation and existing pay equity law. However, there are unanswered questions about the state’s version of the law which need more clarity. ...read more

Peter Frattarelli to be Interviewed on New Jersey 101.5 Town Hall Broadcast

Peter Frattarelli, Chair of Archer’s Labor and Employment Group will be interviewed on New Jersey 101.5 Town Hall broadcast, hosted by Eric Scott, scheduled for Thursday, November 11th at 7:00pm. This program will  focus on vaccine mandates and the legal obligations, rights and options available for both employer and employee. ...read more

Peter Frattarelli Interviewed on New York’s TALK1300AM & 98.7FM Talk Radio Segment “The Paul Vandenburgh Show”

Peter Frattarelli, Chair of Archer’s Labor and Employment Group was interviewed for the second time on New York’s talk radio, The Paul Vandenburgh Show, on the recent revelation of one of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's alleged sexual assault victims coming forward. ...read more

Peter Frattarelli Elected President of Board of Directors of Habitat for Humanity of Burlington and Mercer Counties

Archer partner Peter L. Frattarelli was recently elected President of the Board of Directors of Habitat for Humanity of Burlington and Mercer Counties, a nonprofit organization and affiliate of the national organization that has been working for decades to provide decent, affordable housing to families. Peter is a longtime Habitat volunteer and Officer of the Board of Directors, most recently serving as Vice President. Over the past nine years, he has used his experience in labor and employment law to provide assistance and guidance to the organization.  Peter will serve as President for a two-year term ending on June 30, 2023. ...read more

Archer Annual Labor & Employment Seminar

Join us for a complimentary Labor & Employment Breakfast Seminar. This course will cover the major state and federal laws affecting labor and employment law.  For registration and the full agenda and program description, visit our event website.  ...read more

Archer Attorneys to Present CCSNJ’s Annual 2024 “HR Bootcamp”

Archer Labor & Employment Law attorneys will present the 2024 Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey’s annual “HR Bootcamp." Program information is as follows:  ...read more

Labor & Employment Seminar

Please join us for a complimentary Labor & Employment Breakfast Seminar. This course will cover the major state and federal laws affecting labor and employment law. ...read more