News (All)

By Patrick McCormick and Richard DeMaio

Nine unelected Supreme Court Justices are tasked with deciding the most important issues confronting our country. For better or for worse, we the people are beholden to the jurisprudence of nine politically unaccountable legal minds.  However, the minds of Supreme Court Justices are neither infallible nor uniformly programmed. Justices come to the bench with different backgrounds, biases, methods of analysis, and interpretations of the Constitution. These idiosyncrasies yield the legal decisions that regulate our democratic way of life and reflect the norms, values, and attitudes of society.

Supreme Court decisions are a yardstick to measure society’s progression. Not all that long ago, in many infamous cases, the Supreme Court reached legal conclusions deemed unfathomable today. The Dred Scott decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), held that former slaves even in the “free states” of the North were not free and denied them access to federal courts. In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), the Court declared the doctrine of “separate but equal,” holding that a man that was one-eighth black and seven-eighths white was not permitted to sit in a white-only carriage because he was required to sit in a black-only carriage, which was considered legal “equality.” In Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), the Court upheld a statute permitting the compulsory sterilization of intellectually disabled individuals, noting “[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough.” This opinion was cited by the Nazis a decade later. In Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the Court upheld the internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans while Americans of all races were overseas fighting fascism.

It is critical to note that these decisions were the result of deliberations, and not a single one was unanimously decided. Even cases that have been deemed stains on constitutional jurisprudence included prophetic dissents that vigorously fought to uphold the core values of our Constitution: Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. at 242 (Murphy, J., dissenting) (“Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting, but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States.”); Plessy, 163 U.S. at 559 (Harlan, J., dissenting) (“Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”); Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 582 (Curtis, J., dissenting) (“[I]t is not true, in point of fact, that the Constitution was made exclusively by the white race. And that it was made exclusively for the white race is . . . contradicted by its opening declaration, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States.”).

As is often said with regard to the Supreme Court, yesterday’s dissent is tomorrow’s majority opinion. Canonical dissents shape future deliberations as well as public discourse, and are the fuel that keep democracy moving forward. As Justice William O. Douglas stated, that “judges do not agree . . . is a sign that they are dealing with problems on which society itself is divided. It is the democratic way to express dissident views.” Melvin I. Urofsky, Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue 220 (2015).

Progress is measuring what was to what is. Thirteen years after Justice Curtis stated the Constitution was not “made exclusively for the white race,” the Civil War amendments were ratified abolishing slavery, guaranteeing equal protection under the law, and ensuring the right to vote. Fifty-eight years after the lone dissenter Justice Harlan pronounced “[o]ur Constitution is color-blind,” the spirit of his dissent was vindicated by the Court’s unanimous decision in Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, Shawnee Cty., Kan., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the death knell to the “separate but equal” doctrine established by Plessy. Some forty years after Justice Murphy’s scathing dissent asserting that the internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans “falls into the ugly abyss of racism,” Congress issued a formal apology and paid reparations.

These progressions reflect the flaws and resiliency of our legal system. The Supreme Court is comprised of nine imperfect citizens encumbered with biases and predispositions that inevitably seep into decisions affecting all aspects of society. Their opinions—whether majorities, concurrences, or dissents—are important and must be analyzed. They encapsulate viewpoints, both the eloquent and the ugly, vital to keep society moving forward. Even one articulate dissent is enough to lay the foundation to change history and the law in the highest court of the land.

The Court is insulated from the political whims of the electorate in that Justices cannot be voted off the bench. However, the Court can and must be held accountable for its decisions through we the people engaging in candid discussion and thoughtful analysis of those decisions. Therefore, in this blog, we’ll be doing our part to explore the decisions (and dissents) that so profoundly impact our society.

Food allergies are a growing public health concern with approximately 15 million Americans battling each day to avoid an allergic reaction. A food allergy is nothing to sneeze at; it is a life-altering medical condition in which exposure to a certain food triggers an adverse immune response. Allergy sufferers worry about more than a mere stuffy nose, watery eyes, or an itchy rash; allergic reactions can be life-threatening. Each year, 200,000 people in the United States require emergency medical attention for a severe reaction due to food allergies. In an effort to make the dining experience safer for those suffering from food allergies, the Suffolk County Legislature has imposed a new requirement on local food service establishments – and it just may help drive business, too.

Beginning on July 17, 2018, restaurants and food service establishments must include on all menus (including website menus), and menu boards located inside or outside of the establishment, a notice that declares:

“Before placing your order, please inform your server if a person in your party has a food allergy.”

The law applies to restaurants, cafeterias, delis, bakeries, ice cream stores, bars/taverns, and food trucks (exempt from the requirement are food service operations at schools, camps, child care facilities/programs, institutional settings, and temporary establishments operated by non-profits).

Restaurants should not view this requirement as a burden, but as a potential boon to business. Many people with food allergies avoid dining out because the majority of food allergy-related deaths are caused by foods consumed outside the home. (By not preparing the food themselves, allergy sufferers may unknowingly consume food that either contained or came in contact with the problem food. Dining out significantly increases the risk, as many people order without inquiring about ingredients or don’t have the medicine available to be treated immediately.) The new law aims to not only increase food safety, but also to increase business by encouraging allergy sufferers to consider dining out and assuaging the concern that food service establishments are unsafe for them.

By demonstrating an understanding of food allergies and a willingness to accommodate the customer’s needs, restaurants and other establishments can help eliminate the fear factor and bring in new customers. Indeed, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is working on a program where food service establishments are afforded the opportunity to earn the designation “Food Allergy Friendly.” (More details to come.) While poor communication has long stood between the food service industry and those with food allergies, the wheels of change are now in motion.

Please contact us with any compliance questions you may have.

Thank you to John Eyerman for his research and writing contributions to this article.

By Jamie Herzlich

With more employees coming forward, there’s been an uptick in companies requesting guidance on how to handle potential claims, experts say.

The #MeToo movement has put sexual harassment in the forefront and made it easier for victims to speak out.

That makes it all the more important for employers to be prepared to handle harassment complaints from employees, say experts.

“You don’t want to wait until someone comes forward and then scramble,” says Deb Muller, CEO of Florham Park, New Jersey-based  HR Acuity. “You should be sitting down with your leadership team and saying ‘How do we manage this?’ ”

Anecdotally, she says, she’s been hearing from employers about more sexual harassment incidents being reported internally in the workplace.

“This doesn’t necessarily mean more incidents are occurring, it just means more individuals are comfortable stepping forward,” says Muller.

Christine Malafi, a partner at Campolo, Middleton & McCormick in Ronkonkoma, has seen an uptick in the number of employers requesting guidance on handling potential claims of sexual harassment in the workplace and also looking to update their policies or do refresher training.

“The best defense is a good offense,” says Malafi.

While not all reports turn out to require disciplinary action or result in formal charges being filed, each one must be taken seriously.

“A lot of times it’s a misunderstanding of a situation that can be solved by having a conversation with a member of the company’s management team or human resources team,” says Jeff Agranoff, a principal at Jericho-based Grassi & Co., a CPA and business advisory firm.

“The most important thing you can do is listen and take notes,” says Muller, adding that you can even have an intake questionnaire or template ready.

Have a process and point person  to whom employees can go to report complaints.

If someone reports an incident, ask the employee key questions: What happened? Who was involved? What was the impact of the incident (i.e., did you lose your job?).

You want the employee to feel comfortable coming forward; otherwise the person could end up taking the complaint elsewhere (i.e., to an attorney), Muller says.

“It’s a dangerous situation for a company to not follow a process and investigate it properly,” says Agranoff, noting this typically includes interviewing all people involved.

While conducting the investigation, it’s best to leave the employee in  his or her current position unless a specific change is requested, he says.

“You have to make a reasonable accommodation to put the person in a more comfortable environment,” he says, noting if the the person is comfortable with the current situation “don’t change things just to change them.”

You don’t want someone negatively impacted because they made the complaint. In fact, your harassment/discrimination prevention policy should include a statement prohibiting retaliation.

In the same respect, employers should not be accusatory toward the person the complaint is lodged against while the investigation is ongoing, says Malafi.

Be as discreet as possible when investigating, she says. Perhaps even avoid using names when initially interviewing witnesses. For example, in a case where someone showed inappropriate pictures in the lunchroom, when interviewing employees you may just say there was a complaint that involved someone showing inappropriate pictures and see how they respond, says Malafi.

If an investigation results in valid claims on the part of the accuser, it’s the obligation of the employer to take remedial action to do its best to ensure the  behavior doesn’t continue, says Pfadenhauer, author of “Workplace Investigations: Discrimination and Harassment” (Datamotion Publishing, $29).

Depending on the circumstances, this doesn’t always mean termination; it could mean restating your policy and making sure everyone’s clear on what’s appropriate and inappropriate conduct in the workplace, she says.

And then, says Pfadenhauer, “Management should periodically follow up to make sure the inappropriate behavior does not continue.”

Read it on Newsday.

Walking through the bright, colorful hallways at Lorraine Gregory Communications’ shiny new headquarters, over the hum of state-of-the-art printers and the voices of employees energetically collaborating about social media campaigns, it’s hard to imagine that this lively, innovative company started out in the early ‘90s as a direct mail business staffed by three people stuffing envelopes.

LGC, today a powerhouse marketing and communications firm, recently expanded their footprint with a move to the Heartland Business Center in Edgewood. Founder and CEO Greg Demetriou, a client and friend of CMM, recently invited CMM Managing Partner and HIA-LI Board Chairman Joe Campolo for a tour of LGC’s beautiful 25,000 square-foot facility. The “front of the house” is home to marketing operations, while the “back of the house” features a fully-equipped professional studio and an enormous yet meticulously organized printing and mailing center.

An award-winning retired NYPD detective, Demetriou launched his current career almost by accident. His brother, then a corporate VP at PaineWebber, opened a new business to process proxy mail for the brokerage and asked Demetriou to organize the operation.  Starting with an empty warehouse, the company grew to 132 employees and processed 50 million pieces of mail by the following year. Once that business closed, Demetriou and his wife, Lorraine, pooled their money to purchase a storefront direct mail company he saw advertised in the newspaper. Eventually, through years of dedication and hard work, the former detective found himself at the helm of a direct mail consultancy; a full-service letter shop, fulfillment, and mailing provider; a communications firm; a full color offset and digital commercial printer and bindery; an online development and marketing solutions provider; and a brick-and-mortar and online purveyor of printed envelopes servicing consumers, municipalities, and institutions.

The company was completely rebranded in 2015, effectively merging these distinct divisions into the LGC corporate identity. Today, LGC is the premier provider of marketing and communications expertise in the region, helping clients market themselves on Long Island and around the globe. Demetriou and his team of 35 employees focus on integrated marketing – servicing all marketing needs for clients including advertising, branding, direct mail, media strategy, printing, PR, social media, and web design – all under one roof. LGC is a one-stop-shop for clients with no need to outsource.

“You can’t leave a base untouched,” Demetriou explains. “Marketing is about consistency, and being where your audience is when they’re there.” While a social media presence is absolutely critical today, Demetriou says, each time you add a medium, your ROI goes up. “We still work with clients on TV and print ads – everything is just more targeted. It’s all about the messaging.” LGC works with clients to determine the best platforms and strategy for them to showcase their unique focus. For example, LGC recently helped a client who was looking to hire more workers craft social media posts highlighting the vibrant company culture, employees, and their personal stories to generate buzz and prompt resume submissions.

A longtime supporter of the HIA-LI, well known in the Long Island business community, and now getting to know his new neighbors in the Heartland Business Center, Demetriou enjoys working with clients who understand the value of investing in marketing. As chief rainmaker and strategy officer of the company, he’s also getting to know Long Island CEOs on a deeper level through his exclusive “Ask a CEO” interview series featuring leaders including Michael Dowling, CEO of Northwell Health. But as LGC’s client base grows in size and sophistication, the personal touch remains a hallmark: Demetriou recently drove to a New Jersey trade show to support (and surprise) a client who was nervous about the big event.

Demetriou points to his staff as the reason for LGC’s incredible growth. Company culture is vital at LGC; as Demetriou explains, with today’s relatively low unemployment, companies need to offer something different to attract top talent. “We hire for culture. Skills can be trained,” he says.  As a result, LGC has been awarded several honors from not only HIA-LI, but also Long Island Business News, Future 50, and Smart CEO.

Prospective clients wondering if LGC is the right fit for them need only glance around at important business events and in their networks. “I’m everywhere!” Demetriou jokes. LGC will help companies looking for mature, sophisticated marketing be everywhere, too. Learn more at https://lorrainegregory.com/.

He asked a CEO: Greg Demetriou, founder and CEO of Lorraine Gregory Communications (LGC), recently welcomed Joe Campolo to the company’s beautiful new headquarters in the Heartland Business Center in Edgewood. Next photo: Expect the unexpected at LGC, where creating engaging experiences is part of the company’s DNA.

Entrepreneurship, professionalism, and good corporate citizenship are hallmarks of the LGC experience. Next photo: Social media is just one of the many services LGC offers. Colorful signs and walls help get the team’s creative juices flowing.

A former detective with the New York Police Department, LGC President and CEO Greg Demetriou proudly displays his NYPD Medal of Honor. Next photo: Demetriou, along with VP of Business Development Heather Edwards, recently gave Joe Campolo a tour of their new headquarters, which features an on-site studio. As an integrated marketing agency, LGC offers clients all the services they might need – from branding to social media to direct mail to PR – all under one (large) roof.

At LGC’s new space in the Heartland Business Center, the “front of the house” is home to marketing operations while the “back of the house” features studio, printing, and mail space. Next photo: Think today’s marketing is all digital? LGC still processes between 80 and 100 million pieces of mail a year, generating $20-30 million in postage.

They don’t make them like that anymore: nestled in with the latest technology, this Envelope Master still puts in a hard day’s work. Next photo: This “envelope assembly line” makes the postage machine in your office seem quaint.

Whoever said “print is dead” hasn’t worked with LGC. Next photo: An old-fashioned looking machine churns out the cutting-edge work of LGC.

Members of the LGC team welcomed Campolo to the office.

By Christine Malafi

Sexual harassment in the workplace is by no means a new issue, but in the wake of the #MeToo movement, New York lawmakers have taken action to address it. While well-prepared employers have had sexual harassment policies and training in place for some time, under new legislation, passed as part of the 2019 New York State Budget and signed by Governor Cuomo in April, employers now have no choice and must have policies and training. With portions of the new laws already in effect, and the remaining law going into effect in the very near future, it’s critical that employers approach compliance in a proactive way.

Below is a guide to important policy changes and their effective dates. This list is not exhaustive, and we encourage you to contact us to review your particular situation. Additionally, employers with a New York City presence must comply with several additional requirements and deadlines not addressed in this article; please contact us to review these requirements in detail.

Immediately

• The New York State Human Rights Law now protects all individuals against sexual harassment in the workplace, regardless of their employee status or role. For example, employers may be responsible for sexual harassment endured by their independent contractors and consultants.

July 11, 2018

• As of this date, agreements requiring sexual harassment claims to be submitted to mandatory arbitration are void under New York law.
• Courts are not permitted to approve confidential settlement agreements for sexual harassment claims unless the complainant: (a) is the one who requests confidentiality, (b) was given 21 days to consider the confidentiality provision, and (c) was given seven days to revoke his or her acceptance of the confidentiality provision.

October 9, 2018

• By this date, all employers must prepare and distribute a written sexual harassment policy (either the model sexual harassment prevention policy prepared by the New York State Department of Labor and the New York State Division of Human Rights, or their own policy compliant with all standards of the model policy). The adopted policy must include a statement prohibiting sexual harassment or retaliation for complaints, examples of prohibited conduct, information about the federal and state laws regarding sexual harassment, a standard complaint form, a procedure for timely investigating complaints, a statement of rights, and notice that sexual harassment is considered to be employee misconduct, among other requirements.
• Sexual harassment training for all employees must occur annually. Training must be “interactive” and as with the written policy, employers have a choice of presenting the state-approved version or their own program compliant with all the requirements, which include a definition of sexual harassment, examples of prohibited conduct, and information about the federal and state laws addressing sexual harassment as well as employees’ right of redress and methods/forums to handle complaints.

We encourage our clients to be proactive in addressing these changes by immediately evaluating their existing sexual harassment policies and training (if any) and contacting us for guidance in timely complying with these important new requirements. We are here to help!