News (All)

When to Call it Quits in Negotiation

Posted: August 29th, 2019

By: Joe Campolo, Esq. email

Tags:

When it comes to negotiation, sometimes you have to just walk away.

When a negotiation is going well, and you and your adversary have reached a win-win (or at least a win-not lose) deal, it’s obvious when to stop negotiating. But when a negotiation turns tense or difficult, how do you know when to push through and keep going, or stop and move on? Here are some signs it’s time to call it quits.

1. It’s just not fair!”

It’s human nature for negotiators to determine their preferred outcome, then justify it based on fairness. A recent blog post from the Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation gives a great example: the Winklevoss twins’ case of “settler’s remorse” after receiving a $65 million settlement from Facebook. Arguing that Facebook had cheated them out of hundreds of millions of dollars, the twins waged an expensive and time-consuming battle based on dubious legal grounds to undo the settlement, claiming to be motivated not by money but by fairness.

The alleged pursuit of fairness can be a slippery slope. As the Harvard blog points out, say you’re splitting up with your business partner. Of course, you feel that you deserve a bigger slice of the pie, because you invested more money. But your partner feels that she deserves a bigger slice – because she invested more time. Our natural egocentrism can destroy a negotiation. If the negotiation has hit a wall because you or your adversary are claiming unfairness, take a step back. Ask a colleague or mentor for an objective reality check. It may be time to consider your opponent’s perspective more carefully – or move on.

2. You’re negotiating with the devil (or so you think).

Disputes can drag out over long periods of time – lasting months or even years. With each passing day, frustrations rise, impatience grows, and it becomes easier for the parties to stop seeing the humanity in each other and instead start to demonize each other. Ask yourself honestly: are you continuing to fight it out because you think you can get a better outcome, or because you want to stick it to your opponent? There’s tenacity, and then there’s obsession. In this situation, it may be helpful to ask a trusted advisor or colleague for an honest assessment about whether this fight it still worth pursuing.

3. No one’s budging.

Sometimes in a tense negotiation, no matter how much you prepared beforehand or how carefully you’ve determined your BATNA, a deadlock occurs and the parties simply cannot reach an agreement. When this happens, take some time to reconsider your own position and make sure you are actively listening to the other side’s concerns. (See some other tips here.) The deadlock may be a temporary setback that can be overcome. Still no movement? It may be time to walk away.

These difficult scenarios demonstrate why success in negotiation depends so strongly on your understanding of the psychological principles at play across the table. You owe it to yourself to prepare thoroughly and to keep in mind that a final resolution might not occur in the first round of negotiations. Calling it quits is a last resort, not a first.

The Second Circuit Declines to Extend the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonnell “Official Act” Reasoning to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Posted: August 23rd, 2019

Published In: The Suffolk Lawyer

Tags:

In 2016, in McDonnell v. United States, the U.S. Supreme vacated the former Virginia Governor’s bribery conviction by limiting the definition of what constitutes an “official act.”  Critics argue the McDonnell decision legalizes, or at least substantially shields, public corruption and has already served to overturn (at least temporarily, in the case of former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver) convictions of other public officials.  However, in a decision likely welcomed by good governance advocates, on August 9, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to extend the McDonnell “official act” requirement to Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prosecutions, affirming the conviction of Chinese real estate developer Ng Lap Seng. 

On June 7, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Broderick, J.) ordered Ng to serve concurrent 48-month prison terms after a jury convicted him of paying and conspiring to pay bribes in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 371, 666, and the FCPA, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78dd-2 and 78dd-3.  Ng, a billionaire real estate tycoon, paid more than $1 million to two United Nations diplomats to secure a U.N. commitment to use Ng’s latest Macau-based hotel and convention center as the site for an annual U.N. conference. 

The prosecution’s evidence at trial was detailed and overwhelming.  For instance, in exchange for monthly payments of $20,000 for alleged services rendered to one of Ng’s media companies, one U.N. diplomat and cooperating witness testified his “salary” was in fact bribes to secure for Ng not only general U.N. support for using the convention center, but also a formal documented commitment to do so.  In another instance, the then-President of the U.N. General Assembly travelled to Macau with U.N. staff to visit the convention site in exchange for a payment of $200,000 to the Office of the President of General Assembly.  The diplomats secured official letters and other records of ambassadorial support for Ng’s project and an early commitment to hold the annual conference at Ng’s facility.  Diplomatic efforts to finalize the U.N.’s commitment to the convention center were abandoned in September 2015 following Ng’s arrest. 

The bulk of Judge Raggi’s opinion addressed Ng’s argument that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. Section 666, which criminalizes theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds, cannot stand because the U.N. is not an “organization” within the meaning of the statute.  Judge Raggi used precedential, textual, and historical analysis to hold that public international organizations, such as the U.N., are covered by Section 666 before moving on to Ng’s McDonnel challenge.  That the court, however, may have buried the lead as its holding regarding McDonnell’s application to the FCPA is arguably more significant than its holding regarding the U.N. falling within Section 666’s definition of an organization.

Ng argued the FCPA requires proof of an official act satisfying the McDonnell standard and the district court’s jury instruction failed to satisfy that standard.  At issue in McDonnell was whether “arranging a meeting, contacting another public official, or hosting an event—without more—concerning any subject, including a broad policy issue such as Virginia economic development,” qualified as an “official act” as defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 201(a)(3).  In holding these actions did not qualify, the Supreme Court reversed McDonnell’s conviction and identified two requirements in the statutory text to prove an official act under Section 201: first, the government must identify a “pending” question, matter, proceeding, or controversy that involves the “formal exercise of governmental power.”  Second, the government must prove the public official took an action on that pending matter.  Ng argued not only did the district court not properly instruct the jury, but the facts at trial did not prove an “official act” by the U.N. diplomats. 

Judge Raggi begins with the premise that there is no universal statutory definition for what constitutes a “bribe,” but at the very least all involve a quid pro quo.   However, not all federal statutes define the “quo” in the same manner, much less an “official act” of Section 201.  The court reasons the very existence of different quos across related statutes demonstrates Congress did not intend all bribery or corruption-related laws to be treated identically to Section 201.  Judge Raggi easily dispensed with Ng’s arguments vis-à-vis Section 666, as the Second Circuit in United States v. Boyland previously held McDonnell’s “official act” standard for the quo component of bribery does not apply to the “more expansive language of Section 666, which nowhere mentions “official acts.” 

With respect to the FCPA, the court acknowledges the first quo references an “act or decision” of a “foreign official in his official capacity,” the FCPA does not cabin “official capacity” acts or decisions to a definitional list akin to Section 201’s understanding of official acts.  According to the court, the FCPA is broader and includes, for instance, acts or omissions that violate an official’s “duty” or affect or influence the act or decision of a foreign government.  Judge Raggi also observes the FCPA prohibits bribing a foreign official to “secure an improper advantage” in obtaining, retaining, or directing business without requiring the advantage be secured by an “official act.” 

By declining to extend the McDonnell requirements to the FCPA, the Second Circuit is reinforcing the reasoning of its sister courts holding the “official acts” requirement of Section 201 does not bleed into other statutory anti-bribery regimes, including the FCPA.  While prosecutors may find it more difficult to convict conventional domestic political bribery in a post-McDonnell world, corporate executives subject to the FCPA’s broad, extraterritorial reach cannot become complacent, particularly as the DOJ seeks ever more to hold individuals criminally liable for acts of international business corruption. 

The information contained in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. The firm provides legal advice and other services only to persons or entities with which it has established an attorney-client relationship.

LIBN: HIA-LI scores grant to attract businesses to innovation park

Posted: August 19th, 2019

By Adina Genn

HIA-LI has landed a matching grant from National Grid to help attract businesses to the Long Island Innovation Park at Hauppauge, previously known as the Hauppauge Industrial Park.

The grant is from National Grid’s Cooperative Business Recruitment Program, which offers matching funds for marketing initiatives between a business and the regional and local economic development partners.

Through this grant program, National Grid is providing $24,750. Combined with the dollar-for-dollar match, the overall marketing program will be $49,500.

Through this program, HIA-LI will market the park to audiences in New York City, New Jersey, Connecticut, and the Lower Hudson Valley.

It includes cable-TV advertising and news-radio stations, as well as a public relations outreach to business publications. And it will feature e-mail blasts to 60,000 CEOs and business decision makers in the New York metropolitan area.

“As America’s second-largest business complex, the Long Island Innovation Park at Hauppauge offers compelling advantages as a corporate location,” Terri Alessi-Miceli, president and CEO of HIA-LI said in a statement.

”We’re extremely grateful to National Grid for lending their support to a marketing initiative that is certain to draw new businesses to the park,” she added.

Keith Rooney, National Grid’s director of Customer and Community Management, described the Park as a “premier spot for businesses to succeed.”

With the grant, “we’ll soon be launching an aggressive outreach campaign to broaden our tenant roster,” Joe Campolo, managing partner of Campolo, Middleton & McCormick and chairman of the HIA-LI board of directors, said in a statement.

Read more here.

Malafi Recognized by Peers for Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America for Third Consecutive Year

Posted: August 15th, 2019

Campolo, Middleton & McCormick, LLP, a premier law firm with offices in Westbury, Ronkonkoma, and Bridgehampton, is thrilled to announce that that Senior Partner Christine Malafi has been recognized by her peers for the third year in a row to be featured in the 26th edition of The Best Lawyers in America© 2019 in the category of Employment Law – Management. With this distinction, Malafi ranks among the top five percent of private practice attorneys nationwide as determined by a rigorous peer-review process.

For over three decades, the legal profession and the public have turned to Best Lawyers® as one of the most credible measures of legal integrity and distinction in the United States. Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based on more than 7.4 million confidential evaluations by top attorneys. The Best Lawyers’ founding principle forms the basis of this transparent methodology: the best lawyers know who the best lawyers are. No fee or payment to participate is permitted.

Recognition by Best Lawyers symbolizes excellence, which Malafi embodies in her professional and personal pursuits. Malafi chairs the Corporate department at CMM, where she focuses on mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance, and complex transactions, and also maintains a busy Labor & Employment practice, serving in a general counsel role for many of the firm’s internationally based clients. Prior to joining CMM, Malafi earned the distinction of being the first woman and youngest person ever to serve as Suffolk County Attorney, where for eight years she focused on obtaining jury verdicts in favor of the County, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, and protecting children from harm.

In addition to her legal work, Malafi is dedicated to the Long Island community. She serves on the Boards of Directors of Family Service League, the American Red Cross on Long Island, Girl Scouts of Suffolk County, and Natasha’s Justice Project. She also sits on the Board of Governors of Touro Law School and the New York State Pro Bono Scholars Task Force.

Insurance Executive Turns to CMM to Handle His Own Insurance Dispute

Posted: August 13th, 2019

When a top insurance executive ran into a problem with his own insurance carrier, he turned to CMM for help, trusting that the hard work and legal skill he had seen from CMM in his professional life was the right choice to solve his personal matter. He was right.

The executive’s homeowner’s insurance policy had disclaimed coverage for damage to his garage. CMM filed suit, alleging fraud, breach of contract, and violations of various business law statutes. The insurance company moved to dismiss the lawsuit, but the Court retained the breach of contract claim. Scott Middleton kept the pressure on the insurance company by appealing the Court’s decision to dismiss the other claims, moving forward with the lawsuit by serving multiple subpoenas, and pushing hard for a settlement, recognizing that the insurance company would not ultimately want to take the case to trial.

CMM’s efforts paid off. While awaiting the Court’s decision on a motion regarding the subpoenas, Middleton settled the case for the full amount our client sought. (To top off this victory, shortly after reaching the settlement, the Court issued its decision, siding with CMM on the subpoena issues.) CMM has now withdrawn the lawsuit, and the client is thrilled to have been made whole.

New York Reforms State Sexual Harassment Laws for the Second Consecutive Year

Posted: August 12th, 2019

By Christine Malafi

On August 12, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed reformations to New York’s sexual harassment laws passed in June by State lawmakers. The 2019 reforms provide additional protection to those who have been subjected to workplace harassment and require that state laws be interpreted and construed “to maximize deterrence of discriminatory conduct,” regardless of federal law.[1] These amendments will likely lead to a more employee-friendly ruling climate. The laws will generally take effect 60 days from August 12, 2019, with some provisions having an effective date of 180 days.

Under the new laws, as of February 8, 2020 the definition of “employer” within the entirety of the New York State Human Rights Law has been expanded to include all employers in the state, including the state and its political subdivisions as well (i.e., counties, towns, and villages)[2] and all employers can be liable for any unlawful discrimination they permit it to occur against non-employees, not just sexual harassment.[3]

Up until these reforms, those claiming workplace harassment under New York State law were required to show that the harassment to which they were subjected was “severe or pervasive” to sustain their claim or legal action. The new laws lower the burden of proof by removing the phrase “severe or pervasive” from the legal standard,[4] making “sporadic” sexual harassment sufficient to support a claim. Employers may be liable for harassment (an unlawful discriminatory practice) when the harassment subjects an individual to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment due to his or her membership in a protected class.[5] Employers have affirmative defenses to liability only where the conduct alleged is considered to be petty slights or trivial inconveniences by a “reasonable victim of discrimination with the same protected characteristic.”[6] Further, the new laws prohibit employers from using a complaining employee’s failure to report the alleged harassment or follow the employer’s internal policies and procedures as an absolute defense to a sexual harassment lawsuit.[7] Given these lesser standards, employers should address all forms of workplace harassment to avoid potential liability.

This new law expands the prohibition against mandatory arbitration clauses to all types of discrimination, not just sexual harassment,[8] and also weakens the effectiveness of non-disclosure agreements by expanding protections against their use to not only sexual harassment claims, but all claims for discrimination.[9] The law further permits those employees who sign non-disclosure agreements to participate in sexual harassment investigations and, as of January 1, 2020, voids any non-disclosure obligations with regard to future claims of discrimination unless the employee is told that he or she can still speak with a reporting agency. Moreover, all non-disclosure agreements must be written in “plain English,” be provided to the complainant in his or her primary language, and be given to the complainant at least 21 days before it needs to be signed. After signing, the complainant has seven days to revoke the document.

Further, as of August 12, 2020, the reforms extend the civil limitations period for employees to file discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights from one to three years[10] and the civil and criminal statute of limitations for rape in the second degree to 20 years after the incident, and for rape in the third degree to 10 years after the incident.[11]

The power of the New York State Attorney General’s Office to prosecute discrimination cases has been expanded to all protected classes,[12] and the State Division of Human Rights may award attorneys’ fees in all types of discrimination claims. Moreover, courts may award punitive damages in all types of discrimination claims (involving private employers[13] only); courts no longer have discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees; and the law now provides that the court “shall” award attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party (however, employers who prevail must show that the claim was frivolous to have attorneys’ fees awarded).

A copy of the employer’s sexual harassment prevention policy must be provided to every employee in English and in the primary language of each employee, and must be provided yearly, at the mandatory training sessions under the law.

Finally, the new laws require the State Department of Labor and Division of Human Rights to regularly update the model policies and study the ways in which further progress can be made to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.[14]

These extensive legal reforms will surely have far-reaching consequences. Businesses are advised to again review their workplace policies as soon as possible to remain in compliance with all New York State sexual harassment laws. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these changes to New York State law, please contact our office.


[1] N.Y. Exec. Law § 300.

[2] Id. § 292(5).

[3] Id. § 296-d.

[4] Id. § 296(h) (effective October 11, 2019).

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7]  This defense had been known as the Faragher-Ellerth defense, named after two U.S. Supreme Court cases.

[8] N.Y. Civ. Prac. L & R § 7515(a)(2) & (3) (to extent not inconsistent with federal law; see Latif v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, No. 1:18-cv-11528 (S.D.N.Y. 6/26/19)).

[9] N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-336(1)(a)(b) & (2); N.Y. Civ. Prac. L & R § 5003-b.

[10] N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(5).

[11] N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 30.10(2)(a-1) & (a-2); N.Y. Civ. Prac. L & R § 213-c.

[12] N.Y. Exec. Law § 63(9) & (10).

[13] Id. § 292(37).

[14] N.Y. Labor Law  201-g  (beginning in 2022 and every four years thereafter).

Newsday: Deadline Looms in Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

Posted: August 12th, 2019

This article was originally published in Newsday. Read it here.

By Jamie Herzlich

As summer begins to fade away, an Oct. 9 deadline looms on sexual harassment prevention training for all employees.

Late last year, New York employers were given a nine-month extension from an original Jan. 1 state proposed deadline.

Now employers are encouraged to not delay.   All employers regardless of size must train their workers, experts say.

“Don’t put your head in the sand and wake up and it’s Oct. 10 and you’re not in compliance,” says Christine Malafi, a senior partner at Ronkonkoma-based Campolo, Middleton & McCormick LLP, which has been administering training for clients.

She said some firms are scrambling now that the deadline is fast approaching. Smaller firms in particular may not realize the training is required.

Still, it’s not too late to comply with the law, says Malafi, noting, “I think no one’s behind the eight ball yet.”

Among the requirements: The training must be interactive, include examples of conduct that would constitute unlawful sexual harassment, and include information on employees’ rights of redress and all available forums for adjudicating complaints.

State legislation awaiting the governor’s signature lowers the standard on what could be considered unlawful harassment from conduct deemed “severe or pervasive” to conduct rising above the level of “petty slights and trivial inconveniences.” If signed, that law could alter training down the line.

There’s no minimum required number of hours, says Malafi, whose training takes about an hour for employees and double that for managers and supervisors. “The new law makes it clear that managers and supervisors have heightened duties under the law,” she says, noting companies should be proactive in completing the training.

Carmine Inserra, CEO of ProSysCon Computer Technologies Inc. consultants in East Setauket, agrees.

He and his employees were trained in May by Malafi in a group session organized by the Three Village Chamber of Commerce. “First and foremost,” he says, “I want to promote a safe work environment regardless of the law.”

Newsday: Council OKs $50G for Research on Workforce Training Center

Posted: August 12th, 2019

This article was originally published in Newsday. Read it here.

By Victor Ocasio

The Long Island Regional Planning Council has approved $50,000 in funding for additional research to advance the development of a workforce training center to strengthen the Island’s employment pipeline.

At a council meeting hosted at Hofstra University on Thursday, representatives from Manhattan-based advisory firm James Lima Planning + Development presented the next steps to create  the center, which is meant to give workers the skills needed to support regional business expansion.

Long Island is “seeing an incredible tightening of the labor market, which in some ways is a good problem to have,” said James F. Lima, president of the advisory firm. “But it’s a serious threat to the potential growth in all the places that are facing this.”

The approved funding will permit Lima’s firm to perform two key analyses in the coming months; a comprehensive look at the demand and supply side of the Island’s labor market, and the identification of potential partnerships among government agencies, business organizations and academic institutions.

In the firm’s presentation to the planning council, Lima identified Buffalo’s Northland Workforce Training Center as a potential model. The industry-led, public-private venture focuses on closing the skill gap of Buffalo’s local labor pool by creating training, internship, apprenticeship and permanent employment opportunities at surrounding manufacturers and energy industry businesses.

The planning of a Long Island-based workforce development center comes on the heels of a report published earlier this year about the economic impact of the Island’s largest industrial park.

In April, a report commissioned by the Suffolk County Industrial Development Agency and written by Lima Planning and the Regional Plan Association, looked at the future of the Long Island Innovation Park at Hauppauge, formerly the Hauppauge Industrial Park. The report’s findings called for the park to position itself as a regional economic hub, target tenants from key industries and create an environment that helps attract and retain workers.

“Every business owner we talk to — getting a qualified workforce here on Long Island is their biggest challenge,” said Joseph Campolo, board chair of the Hauppauge Industrial Association of Long Island. “By getting a workforce development center right there in the park … they’ll be able to cultivate their own workforce, and that’s really critical to the sustained growth of Long Island.”

New York Continues to Update its Employment Laws

Posted: August 7th, 2019

By Christine Malafi

On July 10, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed into law two new bills amending New York’s labor and employment requirements. These two new laws will affect all New York employers statewide. They are a continuing trend and an expansion on the RISE Act (see The
RISE Act: Suffolk County Bans Inquiring About Salary History
), which banned inquiries into salary history throughout Suffolk County effective as of June 2019, as well as a similar ban passed in New York City in 2017.

The first new law amends the equal pay provisions of the New York Labor Law to include all protected classes under the New York State Human Rights Law.[1] Currently, this law applies only to equal pay regardless of sex. Employees who fall within these expanded protected classes are now entitled by law to receive equal pay to colleagues who do not fall within these categories for doing the same or substantially similar work. The standard has also been relaxed from “equal to” to “substantially similar to.” The law does not alter existing exceptions to the Labor Law which allow for differences in pay based on a seniority system, merit system, production-based system or a bona fide reason such as education, training or experience which is job-related and consistent with business necessity. This amended law is scheduled to take effect as of October 8, 2019.

The second new law amends the New York Labor Law by prohibiting employers from requesting, inquiring, and/or relying on a job applicant’s or employee’s salary and wage history as a factor when determining whether to hire the candidate or what salary to offer them. The law further prohibits an employer from: using an employee’s or job applicant’s salary history (current or former) for any other reason; refusing to hire or promote an employee who does not provide their salary history; or otherwise retaliating against an applicant or employee based upon their salary history or their refusal to provide such information. Employers can consider current employee salaries in hiring decisions, such as promotions.

Applicants or current employees are not prohibited from voluntarily disclosing their salary history, including for purposes of negotiating compensation, and employers are permitted, after hiring or promoting an applicant, to obtain confirmation of that person’s salary history to confirm the truthfulness of the past salary and wage claimed.

Nor does the law supersede any currently existing federal, state, or local law which requires the disclosure or verification of an employee’s salary history for employment or compensation purposes. This amended law is scheduled to take effect as of January 6, 2020.

What should employers be ready for with these new laws? New York employers should expect an increase in claims brought to court under the new amended Equal Pay Law, as it has lowered the standard for plaintiffs to prove their case. Furthermore, the expanded protected classes under which an individual can claim discrimination under the Equal Pay Law, as well as a statute of limitations which is six years long, means that employers may expect an increase in claims and should be aware of the greater potential damages any failure to properly comply with the law would bring.   

What should employers do to prepare? Given the new federal reporting requirements and to enable employers to potentially avoid costly litigation, all New York employers should consider conducting pay audits and should take the opportunity to review their company’s job application procedures and forms to remove references to salary history, as well as train personnel to avoid any salary history inquiries. Please contact our office with any questions you may have, as well as to discuss your specific business situation.


[1] Protected classes also include but are not limited to age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, disability, and domestic violence-victim status.