Bleakley Platt & Schmidt was honored to sponsor the 35th Annual Dinner for Westchester Catholic Schools last month at Manursing Island Club in Rye, New York. It was a fantastic fundraiser in support of the Inner-City Scholarship Fund.
This year’s proceeds from the event will benefit scholarships, enrichment opportunities, and technology enhancements in the Central Westchester and Northern Westchester-Putnam Catholic school regions.Read More
Kathryn L. Barcroft, who heads Bleakley Platt & Schmidt’s Sexual Harassment and Employment Discrimination practice group, will present an online CLE through West LegalEdcenter titled Impact of Remote and Hybrid Working Arrangements on Sexual Harassment and Discrimination including Impact on Workplace Policies and Investigations, on Tuesday November 29, from 12pm to 1pm.
She has authored articles on a variety of labor and employment issues for publications including the New York Law Journal and Law 360 and has appeared on news programs to discuss legal issues relating to sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination. Her speaking engagements on these topics have included being a panelist at Presidential Summits, the marquee event for the New York State Bar Association.
To learn more and to register, click here.Read More
On October 27, 2022, Bleakley Platt partner Jim Glatthaar co-taught a two-hour continuing legal education class for Judicial Title to update other practitioners on Landlord-Tenant law in New York. During the past 3 years, the practice of Landlord-Tenant law changed drastically, first with the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019, then with a series of pandemic induced changes, including Governor’s Executive Orders, NY Chief Administrative Judge’s Administrative Orders, the Tenant Safe Harbor Act of 2020, the COVID-19 Emergency Eviction and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2020, extensions of eviction and foreclosure moratoria and Court decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court to Federal District Courts to City and Justice Courts where most Landlord-Tenant practice takes place. Mark Guterman of Lehrman, Lehrman & Guterman, LLP also co-taught the CLE class
The CLE class was conducted on Zoom with over 350 people, mostly attorneys, in attendance. Topics covered by Mr. Glatthaar included an analysis of Court decisions raising constitutional challenges to various forms of rent control, rent stabilization, and tenant protection laws; the effect of the end of eviction and foreclosure moratorium; local government attempts to interject themselves into Landlord-Tenant law; and a proposed law which would limit the rights of landlords to evict tenants unless the landlords allege and establish “good cause” for the evictions.Read More
The November 8 midterm elections are quickly approaching. Now is the time for New York employers to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with federal, state, and local law requirements that relate to voting rights and political activity. This is also the time to review your organization’s existing policies and practices. Below are some legal requirements New York businesses may want to consider in connection with voting leave for their employees.
While no federal laws require private employers to give their employees leave in order to vote, as of March 2022 employees of federal agencies are entitled to receive up to four hours of administrative leave to vote in federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial elections. There has also been momentum for nationwide laws to provide voting leave for workers with proposed federal legislation, Bill H.R. 7489, referred in April and currently in the House committee.
Despite the lack of federal legislation covering private businesses, New York is one of 29 states in addition to the District of Columbia that have enacted laws to ensure that employees have the right to take a certain amount of time off from work to vote. Of the states that require voting leave for employees, a majority (all but seven), including New York, provide for paid leave.
Section 3-110 of the New York Election Law mandates that employees who are registered to vote in New York are eligible to take up to two hours of paid time off to vote. The right is triggered only when an employee is deemed not to have sufficient time to vote during the work day (defined as four consecutive hours either from the opening of the polls to the beginning of their work shift, or four consecutive hours between the end of a work shift and the closing of the polls). The two hours of paid leave can be taken at the beginning or end of an employee’s work schedule, as designated by the employer. This paid leave is for any election in New York, including general elections, special elections called by the governor, primary elections, and town and village elections.
Advanced Notice of Leave
Most states with voting leave requirements mandate that employees request time off for voting leave in advance. New York is no different, requiring employees to notify employers of their intention to take paid voting leave at least two but no more than ten working days before Election Day. To avoid confusion, working days means any days that the employer is operating and open for business.
Section 3-110 of the New York Election Law also mandates that employers conspicuously post a notice for employees in the workplace where it can be seen as employees come and go, setting forth the provisions of the law. Notices must be posted at least 10 working days before each election and remain posted until the polls close on Election Day. To view more about employee voting rights, please click here.
Employee Political Activity
Employers should also be aware that for employees who participate in political activity, such as fundraising for candidates, volunteering as poll workers, or running for office, Section 201-D of the New York Labor Law offers protection against discrimination. Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees who engage in political activities outside of working hours, off the employer’s premises, and without the use of the employer’s equipment or other property, if these activities are legal.
On June 20, 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York into law, which provides protection against discrimination in voting by ensuring equal access, in particular to members of racial, ethnic, and language-minority groups. The law prohibits voter dilution; voter suppression; voter intimidation, deception, and obstruction, intentional or otherwise; and requires election-related language assistance beyond what is required by the federal Voting Rights Act. Additionally, the law requires certain political subdivisions to receive pre-clearance for potential violations of the voting rights legislation. There is also now a requirement that covered jurisdictions (those with a history of civil or voting rights violations) “preclear” any changes to certain important election-related laws and policies before these jurisdictions can implement them, to ensure they will not violate the voting rights of a protected class.
With midterm elections quickly approaching, New York employers should evaluate current workplace policies and procedures with special attention to voting leave guidelines. Employers should also take the time to consult with legal experts to ensure compliance with local, state and, federal laws. Companies should also consider how these laws relate to remote work employees, as greater flexibly may be needed to meet the requirements of other states.
The attorneys in our Labor and Employment Practice Group are available for consultation regarding employee voting rights. Click here or contact us at (914) 287-6161 to learn more about how our expertise can help your organization stay compliant.Read More
Wage transparency requirements for job postings are coming to Westchester County. Starting November 6, 2022, a new Westchester County law takes effect, requiring employers to provide a minimum or maximum salary for any job, promotion, or transfer opportunity in the posting or advertisement for the position. This law serves as an amendment to the local Westchester Human Rights law.
The law covers hard-copy or electronic postings pertaining to specific positions for which an employer recruits and accepts applications. It’s important to note that the wage transparency law does not apply to general “Help Wanted” announcements that do not specify a particular job and just generally indicate that an employer is accepting applications.
Westchester County’s wage transparency law also addresses potential confusion around remote work. The law specifically applies to job opportunities that require work to be performed, solely or partially, in Westchester County, whether from an office or remotely.
The Westchester law bears some similarity to a New York City law regarding wage transparency in job postings that will go into effect on November 1, 2022. Like the NYC law, it addresses employers with four or more employees, defines the geographic scope of applicability, and requires that minimum and maximum salaries be posted.
Employers found to be in violation of the wage transparency law are subject to any of the appropriate penalties listed in Section 700.11 (h) of the Laws of Westchester County. If found guilty of unlawful discriminatory practices, they may face penalties ranging from remedial action to damages and costly civil penalties.
New York State employers outside of Westchester should also be aware of Senate Bill S9427A, which has passed both houses of the NYS Legislature and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul. This state-wide law would require employers, employment agencies, and agents to disclose the compensation or range of compensation when advertising any job performed in New York. Unlike previous laws, this law would punish employers who retaliate against applicants or employees who report a violation. Businesses that fail to comply with the statute face civil penalties up to $3,000, depending on their size, good faith, gravity of the violation, and history of prior violations. Additionally, the law would apply to any jobs that “can or will be performed,” at least in part, in New York State. This could mean that the new law will apply to listings in whatever state the employee resides, because the open position “can be” filled by a New York applicant who may work remotely. SB S9427A will take effect 270 days after it is signed into law.
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt strongly encourages employers to take the necessary steps towards compliance before the Westchester County law takes effect in November and continues to monitor developments throughout New York State in line with salary transparency initiatives.Read More
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt is proud to be a part of this year’s Meals on Wheels Cornucopia, a delicious event for a worthy cause. The Hudson Valley’s best chefs gather yearly to prepare dinner for Meals on Wheels’ generous supporters whose contributions earn them a seat at one of twenty tables, each assigned to a different chef who prepares a unique meal for the attendees. Funds raised through the dinner allow the organization to continue feeding those in need.
The Firm also congratulates the 2022 Meals on Wheels Honorees:
Paul Paciello – Helmar Incorporated
George Hoehmann – Supervisor, Town of Clarkstown
To learn more about this special event, click here.
New York City’s Law Imposing Restrictions on the Use of Artificial Intelligence – What Employers Need to Know
Beginning January 1, 2023, New York City employers and employment agencies utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), and automated employment decision tools for hiring purposes or in discretionary employment decisions will be required to comply with new obligations. New York City Council passed the bill in November 2021, and the bill became law on December 10, 2021, Local Law Int. No. 144.
The new law defines an automated employment decision tool as “any computational process, derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence, that issues simplified output, including a score, classification, or recommendation, that is used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making for making employment decisions that impact natural persons.” This definition likely encompasses AI tools that assess employees with job match scores, degree or GPA requirements, and video interview software among other tools.
The law requires any NYC employer or hiring agency using automated employment decision tools to conduct a yearly bias audit of such tools and ensure that a summary of the results is publicly available on the employer or hiring agency’s website. Companies or employment agencies that plan to utilize these tools in hiring starting in the New Year should have the tools submitted for an audit for bias and the results available to the public in 2022.
There are notification requirements for all employment candidates residing in NYC concerning the use of automated employment decision tools in the assessment of credentials for candidacy. Notice must be provided no less than 10 business days before use so that it allows candidates to request an alternative process or accommodation. Furthermore, upon written request from a job candidate, information about the type of data collected for the automated employment decision tool, the source of such data, and the employer or employment agency’s data retention policy must be provided within 30 days.
The Council has not released any additional guidance in relation to compliance with the new law. It’s unclear what qualifies as a bias audit, other than the fact that the audit should include an evaluation by an impartial auditor of the automated tool’s disparate impact on persons in protected categories. With many employers utilizing AI decision tools provided by third-party vendors, due diligence will also be required with respect to the vendor’s compliance with the law.
While NYC’s new law does not expressly permit individual claims to be made by employees or candidates where violations occur, organizations found to be in violation are subject to a civil penalty of $500 for the first violation and any additional violations occurring the same day. Each subsequent violation incurs a fine of anywhere from $500 to $1,500. The law also charges separate violations for failing to comply with notice requirements, and for each subsequent day the automated employment decision tool is used without proper notice being given. NYC’s Office of the Corporation Counsel will be responsible for enforcing the law. Failure to correct these issues in a timely manner can lead to an expensive headache for employers.
New York City’s law is the first of its kind in the United States regarding AI hiring bias, but surely won’t be the last. AI regulation has quickly become a concern, with many states and cities considering how to ensure that these types of tools do not aid in bias or discrimination in employment decisions. In addition, the EEOC, in October 2021, addressed the subject of AI tools in employment decisions with respect to compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.
New York City employers are encouraged to consult with experienced attorneys regarding compliance with the law. Companies may want to seek legal advice with respect to strategies and implementation of practices to protect against potential claims.
The employment law attorneys in our Labor and Employment Practice Group are always available for consultation regarding compliance with this new law. Bleakley Platt’s employment discrimination attorneys are also available for counseling in avoiding discrimination-related litigation. Contact us today at (914) 287-6161 or click here to learn more about how our expertise can help your organization stay compliant.Read More
In a recent article published in The New York Law Journal, partner Kathryn Barcroft looks at how technology and remote-work platforms have made workplace sexual harassment more prevalent and more difficult to recognize and address. The modern office must consider new realities of employee life and adapt sexual harassment policies accordingly. To read more on Twitter, click here.Read More
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt is pleased to announce that 914 Inc. has named associate attorney Zaina Khoury to the “Ones to Watch” list for the category of Health Care Law in the publication’s Best Lawyers issue. Ms. Khoury is a member of the Firm’s Health Care Litigation, Health Law, and Corporate Law practice groups and possesses extensive experience in representing diverse medical industry clients on health care regulatory and transactional matters. Congratulations Zaina!Read More
In a recent Rockland County Business Journal piece, Bleakley Platt attorneys Lino Sciarretta and Daniel Fix look at a recent appellate court case concerning a Town of Greenburgh, NY zoning dispute and what it reveals about the role of the Courts in determining legal standing. Click here, to read their article in full.Read More
On August 4, 2022, President Biden declared a national public health emergency in response to the ongoing monkeypox outbreak. The announcement follows New York and other states having declared emergencies in the days prior. Already weary from the Covid-19 pandemic, New York employers now have to navigate the possibility of monkeypox spreading in their workplaces, as well as manage their already skittish employees who have faced workplace shut-downs and alternative working arrangements as a result of Covid-19. Even though at present monkeypox as an infectious disease seems to present less risk than Covid-19, employers still need to be prepared to address potential outbreaks in their workplaces. Company managers need to consider both the health and legal impacts of this new virus in the months ahead.
Monkeypox and its Spread:
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Monkeypox is a disease caused by infection from the same family of viruses as the variola virus, which causes smallpox, although health officials report that it carries milder symptoms and is rarely fatal. The CDC advises that the virus can be spread through direct or intimate contact, such as with an infectious rash, scabs, or with body fluids. The virus is also spread through respiratory droplets during “prolonged, face-to-face contact, or during intimate physical contact, such as kissing, cuddling, or sex.”
Employers should regularly check for new Monkeypox information as it becomes available from the CDC and the World Health Organization. You can learn more about the virus by clicking here.
Although monkeypox is very different from Covid-19, there are similarities in its implications for employers. As with Covid-19, one of the first steps employers can take to reduce risk of transmission is to educate their employees on the monkeypox virus and precautions they can take to slow its spread.
Employers can also proactively adopt disinfection procedures similar to the procedures used against Covid-19. Routine cleaning and disinfecting of common surfaces and items touched by employees is recommended. In order maximize cleaning measures, the CDC recommends using “EPA-registered disinfectant in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.” CDC guidance also suggests that companies may want to encourage employees to consider vaccination against the virus. Frequent hand washing by employees is also recommended. Up to date guidance can be found here: https://www.cdc.gov
If an employee tests positive for monkeypox or starts exhibiting symptoms, the CDC recommends that the employee should immediately exit their place of employment, isolate, and contact a healthcare provider. If an employee tests positive or is presumed positive, the communicable period is from the time symptoms start until the bumps have healed and a new layer of skin has formed. According to the CDC, a person should isolate until their rash has completely healed and all scabs have fallen off, forming a fresh layer of skin, which unfortunately will impact the workplace and productivity at companies already weary from the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Awareness of potential legal claims:
Similar to COVID-19, stigmas surround the virus and those infected make monkeypox not only a public health crisis but a potential harassment and discrimination issue for employers. While precaution should be taken for employees exhibiting monkeypox symptoms or who have come in close contact with infected individuals, employers should be aware of anti-discrimination laws and remain compliant with Title VII well as state and local discrimination laws. As with COVID-19, discrimination against employees in protected categories who exhibit monkeypox symptoms or who have contracted the virus should be avoided.
While a company may inform other employees in the workplace about a positive case of monkeypox in the office, the employer cannot disclose the employee’s identity or other identifying information (i.e., only essential information should be shared).
Employers should also be mindful of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as state and local laws while addressing any potential cases of monkeypox in the workplace. These laws may require a company to provide reasonable workplace accommodations for an employee with monkeypox. Employers will likely have to engage in an interactive dialogue to determine whether an employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation and what the accommodation may look like, such as additional leave or a remote work accommodation.
Whether an employee is entitled to paid or unpaid leave under state or local laws, or the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), will also be a consideration under circumstances where an employee tests positive and is required to isolate or quarantine. Employers may need to revisit their policies regarding leave and consult with an attorney about requirements for leave in circumstances where an employee tests positive for monkeypox as the spread continues in the United States.
Update Employment Policies:
For these reasons, employers should take the necessary steps to remain compliant with relevant laws while providing a safe, hazard-free environment for their employees. We strongly recommend that employers seek the advice of legal counsel to create strategies in compliance with local, state and federal laws. Companies should also consider updating their employee handbook or policies to include a response to infectious/communicable diseases and include monkeypox in the policies as well as guidance on reducing transmission, and a response plan if there is a spread of the virus in the workplace.
The employment law attorneys in our Labor and Employment Practice Group are always available for consultation regarding implementing new workplace policies. Contact us today at (914) 287-6161 or click here to learn more about how our expertise can help guide you through this latest health crisis.Read More
Remote work is here to stay. According to Forbes, 61% of employees preferred working in a fully remote setting. 97% of employees also preferred to maintain flexibility between remote and office work (Click here, to read the article). The modern employee can work from nearly anywhere for a company across the country or on the other side of the world. This has led some companies to experiment with hybrid work arrangements or forego the office completely. As remote work and related laws continue to be normalized, New York employers with out-of-state employees must remember that they may be subject to laws beyond the Empire State. Here are several variables they must consider.
Employers may be required to comply with the employment laws of the State or city from which a remote employee works if that employee is either not working in New York or is regularly assigned to work from a location outside of New York. Of course, employees who are temporarily assigned to work from a non-New York location (e.g., a contiguous State) as an accommodation to that employee for health or personal reasons (e.g., childcare) would most likely be subject to NY employment laws. Otherwise, considerations should be taken for the family, medical, pregnancy, and sick laws of the State in which the remote employee is regularly assigned to work outside of NY. More specifically, New York’s wage and hour laws may come into effect when paying wages and overtime to non-exempt remote employees working in another State which offer employees less favorable minimum wage and overtime provisions. The determination of which laws apply to remote employees is therefore factspecific and requires legal review and analysis.
If a remote worker is employed in a location other than the employer’s state, it creates a tax nexus for the company in terms of income tax withholdings. This can be an obstacle as companies become subject to taxation in another State, even if only one employee works there. In general, employers should withhold applicable state and local income taxes based on where an employee primarily performs services – meaning their physical location. Some states have reciprocity agreements which permit withholding in a single state. However, New York does not have a reciprocity with either Connecticut or New Jersey.
Remote work has complicated wage and hour compliance for some employers. Organizations must monitor a state’s minimum wage and overtime requirements to adequately compensate a remote employee. Business expenses also must be properly compensated per each state’s laws. For example, California state law requires that employees be reimbursed for work-related expenses. It creates a gray area for employers attempting to determine whether an expense was a matter of convenience or essential to performing job duties.
Employers are still obligated to comply with anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws regardless of an employee working remotely. These include protections such as tthe Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
As remote work continues, employers have begun to increase monitoring practices, whether to monitor productivity or to maintain security. A recent New York law went into effect on May 7, 2022, requiring employers to notify employees of electronic monitoring practices, the legalities of which can vary by state. Texas considers electronic communication monitoring an invasion of privacy but allows supervision of phone systems for appropriate use after the employee is informed. The laws of some states don’t address employee monitoring but have recording laws that create speculation over what constitutes a violation of privacy.
Coordinating work policies with multiple state laws puts companies at risk of excessive fines and unnecessary litigation. Employers should make note of local, state, and federal labor laws to remain compliant with emerging remote work policies. It is strongly recommended that employers seek legal guidance while developing policies in compliance with all relevant laws.
The employment law attorneys of our Labor and Employment Practice Group are available for consultation, if you have any questions regarding establishing new policies. Contact us today at (914) 287-6144, or click here to learn more about how our expertise can help you stay on the right side of the law.Read More
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP is pleased to announce that John W. McGowan has become a partner of the firm.
Mr. McGowan focuses his practice in the areas of Litigation, Labor and Employment Law, Construction Law, and Criminal Defense. In this capacity, Mr. McGowan represents corporate and individual clients at all stages of litigation in the state and federal courts of New York, and serves as labor counsel to several Hudson Valley police unions.
McGowan, a lifelong Rockland County resident, was elected to a 4-year term on the Rockland County Legislature in 2019, serving as one of the County’s 17 elected Legislators. Prior to joining Bleakley Platt, Mr. McGowan was a Senior Assistant District Attorney with the Rockland County District Attorney’s Office, assigned to the Special Victims’ Unit.
Outside of his professional and civic responsibilities, McGowan is president of the Rockland County Ancient Order of Hibernians and an active volunteer with many other local charitable organizations, such as the Rockland Friendly Sons of St. Patrick, Pearl River Elks Lodge 2041, St. Dominic Knights of Columbus, Lourdes Kids of Rockland, and Pearl River American Legion, Post 329. He also serves on the boards of Sisters of Charity Housing Development Corporation and Rockland Green. He is a faculty instructor with the Orangetown Police Youth Court and a former adjunct professor at St. Thomas Aquinas College, where he taught undergraduate courses in criminal law and evidence.
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt looks forward to watching Mr. McGowan excel as he brings his signature brand of energy and passion to his new role at the Firm.
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP
Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP is Westchester’s preeminent law firm, with a more than 85-year legacy of providing superior legal counsel to residents and businesses of Westchester and Rockland Counties, as well as the entire Hudson Valley and Fairfield County, CT. To learn more about the Firm’s services, visit www.bpslaw.com, or contact its offices at (914) 949-2700.Read More
U.S. Supreme Court Eliminates the Requirement of Prejudice In Determining Whether Arbitration Rights Have Been Waived
For more than 50 years, federal courts have held that a litigant in a pending lawsuit must show prejudice in order defeat an opposing party’s invocation of its contractual right to arbitration. Recently, in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the requirement that prejudice be demonstrated by a party resisting arbitration, and in doing so fundamentally altered the test for when a right to arbitration has been waived. The case is an important warning to all litigants that they not sleep on their contractual right to arbitration, lest they risk losing it altogether.
The Facts of the Case
Petitioner Robyn Morgan, an hourly employee at a Taco Bell owned by respondent Sundance, signed an employment agreement containing an arbitration clause. She accused Sundance of manipulating payroll records to avoid paying overtime, commencing an action asserting wage theft under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Before filing a motion to compel arbitration, Sundance defended the action in federal court for eight months, filing a motion to dismiss that was denied and then engaging in unsuccessful mediation. Applying precedent, the lower court denied Sundance’s motion, finding that the company knew of its right to arbitration, but acted in a manner that was inconsistent with that right and prejudiced Morgan through its inconsistent actions. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, thus permitting arbitration to proceed, concluding that Morgan did not demonstrate prejudice.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court noted that the Eighth Circuit relied upon a 1968 Second Circuit decision (Carcich v. Rederi A/B Nordie) that interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) as “an overriding federal policy favoring arbitration” and held that “mere delay” without prejudice to an opposing party is insufficient to waive an arbitration clause. In the years since Carcich was decided, multiple other federal Circuit Courts have adopted the prejudice requirement and applied the Second Circuit’s reasoning.
In Morgan, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Carcich and held that the FAA does not authorize courts to create procedural rules that favor arbitration. Referring to Section 6 of the FAA, which provides that any application to compel arbitration “shall be made and heard in the manner provided by law for the making and hearing of motions,” the Court concluded that the FAA prohibited the courts from formulating special rules intended to operate in “favor of (or against) arbitration.” The Court found that requiring a showing prejudice by the party opposing arbitration was such a rule and therefore was prohibited.
Having eliminated the prejudice requirement, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Eighth Circuit with a direction to consider whether Sundance knowingly waived its right to arbitrate by acting in a manner that was inconsistent with that right.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan instructs that federal courts may not give special treatment to arbitration provisions, with waiver of arbitration no longer being conditioned on a showing of prejudice to the party opposing it. Accordingly, litigants who wish to invoke their contractual right to arbitration in the context of an existing lawsuit should do so promptly, or else risk waiving their rights through continued litigation in court.
Richard F. Markert is a Bleakley Platt partner and a member of the Firm’s Litigation Practice Group, specializing in commercial litigation and arbitrations. To read Mr. Markert’s attorney profile, please click here.Read More