Gary D Friedman

October 20, 2020 | New York Law Journal

A look at the ways in which A.I. has been used during the hiring process and the expanding legal framework in which these tools must operate, as well as potential pitfalls for employers.

By Gary D. Friedman and Thomas McCarthy

8 minute read

April 14, 2020 | New York Law Journal

This article highlights some of the different considerations for employers under WARN where there exists greater than normal uncertainty about the future work environment.

By Gary D. Friedman, Jeffrey S. Klein, Nicholas J. Pappas and Justin M. DiGennaro

14 minute read

July 22, 2013 | New York Law Journal

Gary D. Friedman and Ami G. Zweig of Weil, Gotshal & Manges write: In a holding that will likely result in numerous workplace harassment cases being dismissed at the summary judgment stage and compel employers to more clearly delineate the job responsibilities of their employees to identify those who have "the authority to take tangible employment actions," the U.S. Supreme Court surgically narrowed the scope of who constitutes a "supervisor" under Title VII in its recent 'Vance v. Ball State Univ.' decision.

By Gary D. Friedman and Ami G. Zweig

12 minute read

July 26, 1999 | Law.com

The New Jersey Supreme Court's recent decision in Bergren Commercial Bank v. Sisler, holding that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) permits under-40 workers to sue current or prospective employers, has potential ramifications nationwide. The case itself also raises perplexing questions about compliance and employer liability. Bergreninjects both a new protected class and a fresh theory of reverse discrimination into the law.

By Gary D. Friedman and Susan E. Provenzano

14 minute read

August 04, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Gary D. Friedman, a partner at Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, and Jonathan A. Shiffman, an associate at the firm, write that in a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Title VII plaintiff alleging retaliation must show that she was a victim of an employer action that a reasonable employee would find to be "materially adverse" to her interests, even if that action was unrelated to the terms and conditions of that employee's employment.

By Gary D. Friedman and Jonathan A. Shiffman

16 minute read

March 22, 2011 | New York Law Journal

Gary D. Friedman, a partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, and Courtney P. Fain, an associate at the firm, write that despite the Supreme Court's holding, Staub v. Proctor Hospital is not necessarily a victory for the plaintiffs' bar. Importantly, while the Court rejected the strict "alter ego" standard, that standard had only been applied in the Fourth and Seventh circuits. Plaintiffs in circuits where the more expansive "influence" standard has historically applied may face a higher burden.

By Gary D. Friedman and Courtney P. Fain

14 minute read