Law Offices of Richard E. Yaskin
is a Cherry Hill, NJ employment attorney,
dedicated to fighting discrimination and
advancing employment rights in New Jersey

Firm News: Cherry Hill, NJ employment Law Offices of Richard E. Yaskin

2011, July 13
The New Jersey Employment Law blog of Richard E. Yaskin, Esquire has launched! As a plaintiffs' employment attorney dedicated to Leveling the Playing Field in employment litigation, Mr. Yaskin’s posts address significant employment litigation issues from the employees' perspective.

2011, June 17
Richard E. Yaskin, Esquire spoke at the NJICLE Seminar on April 26, 2011 in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The Program focused on "Damages and Attorney's Fees in Employment Cases." Mr. Yaskin joined Dr. Susan Esquilin in discussing the "Use of psychological experts in employment litigation." View outline of their presentation:"Use of psychological experts in employment litigation".

2011, May 10
Richard E. Yaskin, Esquire spoke at the Camden County Bar Association's annual "Employment Law Update" seminar at the Manison in Voorhees, New Jersey. He discussed significant federal and New Jersey employment law decisions involving whistleblower retaliation, email and pager privacy rights and proofs of age discrimination.

2011, February 25
Amicus brief submitted by Richard Yaskin on behalf of NELA-NJ in Winters v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, et. al., NJ Supreme Court Case No. 066968, seeking to preserve the right of jury trial for victims of retaliation and discrimination who also challenge their job discipline at the NJ Civil Service Commission.
Read the Winter's NELA-NJ Amicus Brief.

Read the NJ Supreme Court's Supplemental Questions to the Counsel of record of 7/28/2011.

Read the NELA-NJ Supplemental Amicus Brief in response to said Questions by the Court.

2010, September 3, 2010
Yaskin moderates a panel addressing DISCOVERY COMMON TACTICS AND HOW TO RESPOND at the NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (NELA) NEW JERSEY CHAPTER ANNUAL CONFERENCE.

The annual conference was held Friday, October 08, 2010, from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, at the Hilton Woodbridge, Iselin, NJ. Yaskin moderated a panel of plaintiff's and defendant's counsel on deposition tactics and techniques. See photos (below) from conference.

 

2010, August 23
Atlantic County Trial Judge backs Richard E. Yaskin, Esquire's petition to bar intrusive mental examinations of plaintiffs' alleging NJ Law Against Discrimination racial harassment and emotional distress claims.

On August 23, 2010, Richard E. Yaskin, Esquire obtained a ruling from an Atlantic County Trial Judge that his clients alleging racial harassment and emotional distress claims as part of a job discrimination suit can't be required to undergo psychological examinations. NJ Superior Court Judge Joseph E. Kane refused to force psychiatric examinations of the plaintiffs under New Jersey Court Rule 4:19. This rule allows an adverse party to require a party, whose physical or mental condition is in controversy, to submit to a physical or mental examination. Since the NJ Law Against Discrimination recognizes that victims of workplace harassment typically suffer mental distress, the Court ruled that their claim for such damages did not place plaintiffs' mental condition in controversy. Read Trial Judge Joseph Kane's Memorandum of Decision.

2010, May 13
Richard E. Yaskin, Esquire spoke at the Camden County Bar Association "Employment Law Update" seminar. The seminar was held May 13, 2010 at The Mansion in Voorhees, NJ. Topics included: Review of recent significant employment law developments, commentary from employment law experts, and practice tips for employment lawyers from the bench and bar.

 

2010, March 25
Yaskin presents on discovery strategy at NELA-NJ (National Employment Lawyers Association) Meeting

On Wednesday, March 24, 2010, Richard Yaskin, Esq. and Andrew Dwyer, Esq. gave a presentation at the NELA-NJ meeting in New Brunswick, NJ. The topic was “Written Discovery: Strategies for Success.”

 

The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.

— Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Source: Univ. of Calif. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)