Forward Thinking: Planning to get back to business after COVID-19

Russell L. Lichtenstein, Esquire

Most of us are wondering what the “new normal” will be once the various stay-at-home orders have been lifted and we all get back into the workplace. It is never too early to start planning the restart of our economy by the reopening of our business locations.

There are a number of issues that employers will encounter as we begin to ramp our businesses back up.

While the law and regulations are constantly evolving in light of the unique and unprecedented environment that we find ourselves in, there are certain issues that we can address even at this early stage. The following are just a few questions and answers which hopefully will give employers some guidance for getting back to the “new normal.”

Q. Can an employer require returning employees to present medical documentation that they are free from COVID-19?
A. Yes. Such an inquiry is permitted under the law, and specifically under the ADA, because this inquiry is not disability related. As a practical matter, however, the medical community may simply not be able, during and immediately following the COVID-19 outbreak, to provide these “fitness for duty” certifications. Employers should begin to consider, at this early juncture, if such “fitness for duty” documentation will be required and, if so, how logistically to arrange for their workforce to obtain such examinations. These “fitness for duty” examinations should be limited to issues that surround COVID-19 and cannot be used for any other disability-related inquiries which would otherwise be unlawful under the ADA and other employee protection statutes.

Q. Can an employer take daily temperature readings of employees returning to the workplace following the COVID-19 pandemic?
A. Yes. The EEOC recently issued guidance on this point. While typically taking an employee’s temperature would be considered to be a medical examination and prohibited under the ADA and other employee protection statutes, in light of the community spread of COVID-19, employers are specifically permitted to measure the temperature of employees. Health professionals, however, point out that some people with COVID-19 do not register a fever. From a practical standpoint, employers should be equipped, should they choose to take the temperature of employees, to do this in a non-invasive efficient manner. The use of infrared forehead thermometer “gun” type devices is both practical, efficient and non-invasive. Employers wishing to take the temperature of employees following the pandemic should immediately make arrangements to acquire those items.

Q. Once businesses are reopened, can an employer ask an employee who reports to work feeling ill to leave the workplace?
A. Yes. The Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) states that employees who become ill with symptoms of influenza-like illness, including COVID-19, during a pandemic should leave the workplace. Advising employees who present with flu-like symptoms to go home is not a disability-related action. Additionally, the action would be permitted under the ADA if the illness were serious enough to pose a direct threat, which is clearly the case with COVID-19.

Q. Related to the question above, how much information may an employer request from employees who report to work feeling ill or who call in sick?
A. An employer may ask such employees if they are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. Employers must maintain all information about employee illness as confidential medical records in compliance with various Federal laws including the ADA.

Q. Upon returning to work, can an employer require employees to adopt infection control practices such as regular hand washing in the workplace?
A. Yes. According to the EEOC, requiring infection control practices such as regular hand washing, coughing and sneezing etiquette and proper tissue usage and disposal is permitted. Further, these actions are encouraged by the CDC.

The Employment Law Practice Group at Cooper Levenson is fully operational and ready to assist you in these very difficult times. Please reach out to Practice Group Chair Russell Lichtenstein at (609) 572-7676 or in order to schedule a consultation on any employment related issues which you may be encountering during these most difficult times.

Stay safe and healthy.

 Our e-mails about recent developments are not intended to substitute for our legal advice to our clients based on your specific needs or requests. In addition, our guidance is subject to, and can be superseded by new laws, rules, regulations, or orders, particularly during the current public health where regulations and directives can be issued on a daily if not hourly basis. Moreover, some directives from the Federal and State authorities can appear, and can be, contradictory or in conflict, so please contact us for assistance.

Click here to sign up for the latest employment law news from Cooper Levenson.


Families First Coronavirus Response Act Effective April 1, 2020

April 1, 2020
Russell L. Lichtenstein, Esq.

Today (April 1, 2020), the Federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) goes into effect.  The FFCRA provides certain benefits for employees directly impacted by illnesses related to the coronavirus and employees who have been required to care for a child as a result of the closure of a school or childcare facility or the unavailability of a childcare provider.

The FFCRA provides for two weeks (80 hours) of paid leave in connection with certain circumstances related to the coronavirus outbreak.  Further, the FFCRA provides different benefits depending upon whether or not the leave is required as a result of direct health issues or in connection with the care of a child who has been displaced as a result of the closure of a school or childcare facility or provider.

With some exceptions, employers with less than 500 employees are covered by the FFCRA.  The FFCRA provides businesses with less than 50 employees the ability to apply to the U.S. Department of Labor for an exemption from the provisions of the Act if providing the paid leave would “jeopardize the viability of the business.”   Moreover, all employees of any employer covered are eligible for two weeks of paid sick time for specified reasons related to COVID-19. Additionally, employees employed for at least 30 days are eligible for up to an additional ten weeks of paid family leave to care for a child under circumstances related to COVID-19.

Under the FFCRA, an employee will be qualified for paid sick leave if the employee is unable to work or telework due to a need for leave under the following circumstances:

  1. The employee is subject to a Federal, State or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
  2. The employee has been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine related to COVID-19;
  3. The employee is experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and is seeking a medical diagnosis with a medical professional; 
  4. The employee is caring for an individual subject to an order related to a Federal, State or local quarantine or isolation order or is self-quarantined;
  5. The employee is caring for a child whose school or place of care is closed, or childcare provider unavailable, for reasons related to COVID-19; or
  6. An employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition as specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Treasury.

In addition to the above, under the FFCRA, an employee qualifies for expanded paid family leave if the employee is caring for a child whose place of care is closed, or childcare provider unavailable, for reasons relating to COVID-19.

There is a significant distinction between the concept of a “quarantine or isolation order” and the current stay-at-home orders issued by many jurisdictions throughout the United States.  “Quarantine” is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the separation of an individual or group reasonably believed to have been exposed to a quarantinable communicable disease, but who are not yet ill, from others who have not been so exposed, to prevent the possible spread of the quarantinable communicable disease.”  “Isolation,” on the other hand, is defined as “the separation of an individual or group reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease from those who are healthy to prevent the spread of the quarantinable communicable disease.”

Individuals who qualify for paid leave under the FFCRA  are entitled to two weeks (up to 80 hours) of paid sick leave.  The amount of the sick leave and certain limitations change depending upon the reason for the leave.  For items 1 through 3, referenced above, an employee is entitled to paid sick leave at the employee’s regular rate of pay, or the applicable minimum wage, whichever is higher, up to $511 per day or $5,110 in the aggregate over a two week period.

For leave for reasons #4 and #6 referenced above, an employee taking leave is entitled to be paid at 2/3 of their regular rates or 2/3 of the applicable minimum wage, whichever is higher, up to a maximum of $200 per day and $2,000 in the aggregate over a two week period.

Additionally, the FFCRA provides for expanded benefits in connection with caring for a child whose school or place of care is closed or childcare provider is unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19 (reason #5, above).  Specifically, the duration of the paid leave under these circumstances is extended for up to 12 weeks. Specifically, for the reasons referenced in reason #5, an employee would be entitled to be paid at the 2/3 calculation referenced above up to a maximum of $200 per day and $12,000 in the aggregate.

While the payments referenced above are paid by the employer, the FFCRA provides the employer with a tax credit for qualified FFCRA sick leave and family leave wages.  This fully refundable tax credit is equal to the full amount of the required paid family and medical leave under the FFCRA. In addition, the tax credit also includes an eligible employer’s share of Medicare tax imposed on those wages as well as the  cost incurred in maintaining health insurance coverage for the employee during the family leave period. Further, the employer is not subject to the employer portion of Social Security tax imposed on FFCRA paid sick and family leave wages.

The Act also requires the posting of a notice concerning employee rights under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.  A link to the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division poster is embedded with this communication.  

The Employment Law Practice Group at Cooper Levenson is fully operational and ready to assist you in these very difficult times.  Please reach out to Practice Group Chair Russell Lichtenstein at (609) 572-7676 or in order to schedule a consultation on any employment related issues which you may be encountering during these most difficult times.

Please click HERE for the FFCRA poster on Employee Rights.

Our Partner Russell Lichtenstein represents Levinson and Formica and argued the motion that resulted in their dismissal from the sex discrimination lawsuit against county prosecutor.

As seen in The Press of Atlantic City July 16, 2019 edition

A judge on Friday dismissed Atlantic County Executive Dennis Levinson and Freeholder Frank Formica from the lawsuit alleging discrimination against women by County Prosecutor Damon Tyner.

“The reason I was put in, in the first place, is I went to a rally at a church in Pleasantville in support of Damon Tyner,” said Levinson on Monday. “Not about whether he was guilty or innocent (of the charges of discrimination), but in support of him as a human being and what he has given to the community.”

Levinson credited Tyner with successfully bringing murder and drug charges against Linwood doctor James Kauffman, in the 2012 death of his wife April Kauffman. The case had gone cold under previous prosecutors.

Kauffman killed himself in prison.

The suit, filed in January by former Assistant Prosecutor Diane Ruberton, former Lt. Heather McManus and current Assistant Prosecutor Donna Fetzer, alleges gender discrimination, retaliation and other illicit behavior by the prosecutor and others in his office.

The attorney representing Levinson and Formica said Monday that Cumberland County Superior Court Judge James R. Swift found no merit to any of the claims against his clients, and dismissed the case against them with prejudice. That means the plaintiffs can’t file an amended claim to bring them back in, he said.

The case was moved to Cumberland County in March.

“It appears the plaintiffs were trying to silence County Executive Levinson and Freeholder Formica from speaking out in support of the fine job Damon Tyner has done,” said Russell Lichtenstein, a partner at Cooper Levenson.

Lawyers for the women released a written statement via email Monday afternoon.

“We believe that Dennis Levinson and Frank Formica engaged in actions that were retaliatory and that failed to protect these three women from discrimination,” said Michelle Douglass and Philip Burnham, the lawyers for the women. “New Jersey law makes clear that these actions can be the basis of a legal claim of discrimination even if the retaliation comes after an employee is no longer at her job.”

Tyner, whose office did not respond to a request for comment Monday, released a statement about the suit at the time it was filed.

“It is apparent that the plaintiffs are living in an alternative universe,” the statement said. “The very same conduct they accuse me and the members of my administration of committing was actually carried out by them and others during their brief, ineffective period of leadership of the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office.”

Levinson called his inclusion in the sex discrimination case “preposterous,” pointing out that he and the county have no say over who is appointed prosecutor, or how the office is run.

“As their lawyers should know … he is appointed by the governor,” Levinson said, and the prosecutor’s office operates independently.

Formica was named in the suit, according to Levinson, because his brother, Mario Formica, worked for the Prosecutor’s Office.

County Counsel Jim Ferguson estimated the inclusion of Levinson and Formica has already cost county taxpayers at least $20,000 in legal bills and expenses related to the case.

And the expenses will continue, Ferguson said, because the county itself is still named in the lawsuit.

“It’s an outrage. We don’t appoint, direct or hire anybody for that office,” Levinson said. “All we do is pay for it.”

He said the lawsuit will stretch out for quite some time, and cost the county taxpayers plenty.

“It is what it is. We have to live with it,” Levinson said.

The women allege in the suit that Tyner demoted high-ranking women while giving men raises, paid newly hired women at a lower rate than newly hired men, covered up complaints of gender discrimination and spoke in a derogatory fashion about women in general.

In addition to allegations of gender discrimination, the three women claim Tyner was involved in mortgage fraud, failed to investigate a claim that a police officer was leaking confidential information about the April Kauffman murder case and failed to tell defense counsel about the possible leak. They also accuse him of firing employees to hire his brother, and refusing to investigate after an assistant prosecutor exchanged advice via texts with a defendant in a pending domestic violence case.

Regarding Levinson and Formica, the lawsuit alleged they “refuse to look deeper at gender bias and systemically devalue plaintiffs, as women, in the workplace” and “have publicly announced their support of the male defendants even before this lawsuit was filed and even before all the facts were and/or have been disclosed.”

Contact: 609-272-7219 Twitter @MichelleBPost

Minimum Wage Increase Uniquely Impacts Restaurant Employers

by: Amy E. Rudley, Esq.

Your company has likely received numerous e-mails and notifications set out to remind you that effective July 1, 2019, minimum wage in New Jersey has increased to $10.00 per hour.  However, the impact that this increase has, and that future increases will have on employers of tipped staff has not been adequately addressed in the mainstream discussions of the change.

For tipped employees, the July 1, 2019 increase brings the employee’s required base pay to $2.63 and increases the amount of the available tip credit to $7.27.  This cash base pay and the tip credit, when added together, equal the State’s regular minimum wage.  Along with the minimum wage, the wages for tipped employees are set to increase at regular intervals through January 1, 2024, when the regular minimum wage will be $15.00, the required cash wage will be $5.13, and the allowable tip credit will be $9.87.

The trouble for employers is here.  One requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] is that the tip credit “claimed by the employer cannot exceed the amount of tips actually received by the tipped employee.”  Many businesses have had difficulty with insufficient tips in their “off season” or on “slow shifts.”  The result of such a situation is that their tipped staff is not receiving sufficient tips to cover the full amount of the tip credit claimed by the employer.  This means that the employee is not being paid the mandated minimum wage.  The FLSA requires that the cash wage paid to an employee and their tips, when combined, equal at least as much as the State’s minimum wage.  While this was sometimes an issue when the tip credit was a mere $6.72, in less than five years, the amount of the available tip credit will increase significantly to $9.89 per hour.  We expect a substantial uptick in those employees who claim that their tips received are not sufficient to cover the tip credit claimed.  Accordingly, businesses who do not track their employee’s tips must keep a careful watch on their total sales to ensure that sufficient tips are likely being earned.

If a tipped employee’s tips are not sufficient to cover the amount of the tip credit, the violation is the loss of the entire tip credit for the period in question.  Often lawsuits for such violations are brought by numerous employees together.  For chain restaurants or larger independent operations, the damages could quickly multiply and become insurmountable.  In addition to the lost wages, impacted employees would also be entitled to the payment of their own attorney’s fees for bringing the action against your company.

Cooper Levenson’s Employment Department has the restaurant and hospitality experience to help defend your company in such litigated matters and, better yet, can help prevent them from occurring through proper planning and consultation.

Better Business, Better Boating: Cooper Levenson Attorneys to give Legal Update at Marine Trades Association of New Jersey Conference March 14th

Cooper Levenson attorneys Amy E. Rudley and Kevin J. Thornton will present a legal update at the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey (MTA/NJ) Conference and Expo on Thursday, March 14th at The Mainland at Holiday Inn in Manahawkin, NJ.  The attorneys will address the top legal issues and recent changes to laws impacting marine business such as Paid Leave and impacts to seasonal employees and minimum wage. They will also cover topics such as “Legal Ways to Help Get Paid,” “Benefits and Risks of Having Employee Handbooks” and how separate topic, stand-alone written policies might benefit smaller businesses.

Rudley, a Partner in the firm, focuses on the areas of employment law, hospitality & casino law, and defense litigation including civil rights litigation and premises liability. She guides clients through the drafting of handbooks and day-to-day employment practices and decisions. Rudley also conducts employment seminars, sessions and trainings, as well as investigations in to workplace allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. She is admitted to practice law in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and was named to the New Jersey Rising Star Super Lawyer list in the area of Employment Law each year from 2013 to the present.

Thornton, a Proctor in Admiralty, is a partner in the Atlantic City Office. He is a member of the firm’s Commercial Litigation and Maritime Law practice groups. He has a diverse array of clients involved in the marine insurance, marine construction, commercial fishing, recreational boating, and marinas. Thornton has served as Chairman of The Maritime Law Association of the United States Fisheries Committee, is a member of the Board of Directors, Maritime Law Association of the United States, and has served as Pro Bono Counsel for the Garden State Seafood Association since 1999.

For more information, visit

Read this APP story about a filing by our Partner, Russell L. Lichtenstein: Headline “Ocean County prosecutor knew anti-drug ally may have broken law for drug convict: legal claim”

Ocean County prosecutor knew anti-drug ally may have broken law for drug convict: legal claim

TOMS RIVER – After five years of fighting drug abuse, Ocean County Prosecutor Joseph Coronato fired a top prosecutor who told him that Coronato’s ally in the fight against opioids may have broken the law by sending a convicted drug offender out of state in violation of a court order, according to explosive allegations made in legal papers filed by the fired prosecutor….

…”On July 16, three days after Lichtenstein sent a letter to Coronato explaining that Paulhus’ termination violated the state’s whistleblower law, Coronato fired Paulhus, effective immediately.”…

Click here to download a printable version.

Click here to read the APP story on their site:



What Employers Need to Know about New Jersey’s New Paid Sick Leave Act

When New Jersey’s Paid Sick Leave Act goes into effect on October 29, people who work in New Jersey will be able to take up to five sick days without losing any pay. Cooper Levenson’s Russell L. Lichtenstein, Esq., chairman of the Labor & Employment Practice Group, is offering a free white paper explaining key provisions of the new law to employers.

“The Act represents a significant change in the law related to sick leave,” explained attorney Russell L. Lichtenstein, Esq., chairman of the Labor & Employment Practice Group at Cooper Levenson, P.A. “Employers will need to make certain that their payroll and human resources departments understand these changes and are ready to implement the new law when it becomes effective.”

New Jersey’s Paid Sick Leave Act requires employers to provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave per year to covered employees. The new state law preempts any municipal laws for earned sick leave, so employers will need to review and adjust their policies to comply with the act’s requirements prior to its start, according to Lichtenstein.

Under the Act, sick leave is broadly defined to encompass an employee’s own health needs or those of a family member, including an individual whose close association is equivalent to a family relationship. Sick leave also covers parent-school conferences.

Full-time, part-time and seasonal employees each will earn one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked with a maximum of 40 hours sick time per benefit year. There are exemptions, such as construction industry labor under contract and per diem healthcare employees.

Lichtenstein is offering a free white paper that explains New Jersey’s New Paid Sick Leave Act in greater detail, and that provides key action items for businesses to take to ensure they are in compliance. For a copy, contact

RICE Notice change! Supreme Court reverses Appellate Division over-inclusive RICE notice decision

By Amy Houck Elco, Esq.  and  Yolanda N. Melville, Esq.

Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in Kean Federation of Teachers v. Ada Morell (A-84-16) (078926). The Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Division’s decision requiring all employees to receive a RICE notice if their names appeared on a public body’s agenda. The Supreme Court opined that RICE notices must be given if an employee will be discussed in executive session and adverse action may be taken regarding his or her employment. The Court also opined that mandating public bodies to issue RICE notices and robustly discuss all personnel matters, as the Appellate Division intimated, would intrude on a public body’s prerogative as to how to conduct its meetings. The Open Public Meetings Act (“OPMA”) does not contain a requirement about the robustness of the discussion that must take place on a topic.

In addition, the OPMA requires public bodies to make their meeting minutes “promptly available to the public to the extent that making such matters public shall not be inconsistent with [N.J.S.A. 10:4-12].” However, the OPMA but does not define the phrase, “promptly available.” The Court reasoned that a public entity must establish its meeting schedule to suit the managerial obligations of its public responsibilities while also acting responsibly concerning its obligation to make minutes “promptly available” to the public. The OPMA’s requirements apply to a diverse range of public entities, so no set amount of time for the release of minutes should be mandated. The OPMA’s legislative history recognizes that closed-session minutes may need to be shielded from the public for a longer period due to the sensitive nature of the material. However, reasonableness must remain the touchstone when assessing promptness. In this case, the five-month delay in releasing the Board’s executive session minutes was considered unreasonable.

Stephanie Farrell to speak at Cape May County Chamber February 9, 2018

Stephanie Farrell will present “Sexual Harassment 101” for business owners and managers at the Cape May County Chamber’s Feb. 9 educational session. The seminar will be held at the Atlantic Cape Community College, Cape May Court House Campus, 341 Court House-South Dennis Road, Cape May Court House, N.J. from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m.

The session will cover topics including:
– What is sexual harassment?
– How do you identify it?
– What do you do when you receive a complaint?
– Who is liable for acts of sexual harassment?
– How an owner or manager can protect their business from claims of sexual harassment

Register for the event The fee is $20 for Chamber members, $35 for non-members.


By: Russell L. Lichtenstein, Esquire

            If you have begun to read this piece, even without a subtitle you know what it is about.  In the weeks since the Harvey Weinstein story broke in the national media, the subjects of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace have become a headline of our national discourse.  There is little doubt that we have only learned about a fraction of the allegations, accusations and inevitable denials to come.  Every business owner, HR professional and leadership team member needs to pay close attention to what is unfolding nationally as it certainly has the capacity to substantially impact your business.

Employers need to anticipate and prepare for a significant uptick in complaints of sexual harassment and workplace sexual misconduct.  However, a mere passive recognition of these issues will not protect your business, the morale of your employees or your financial future.

A few simple steps can put you in a much better position to assess and respond to allegations, complaints and rumors of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the workplace.

I Know We Have A Policy … Somewhere

While I am certain that the majority of those reading this article have in place anti-harassment/discrimination policies, I am equally certain that if you were to ask your managers and supervisors to recite the substance of your policy, most would have a failing grade.  An initial measure of preventive medicine is to dust off that old policy binder, locate the anti-harassment/discrimination policy and review it with your HR team and employment counsel.  Make sure that the policy is clear and unambiguous.  Make sure the policy provides for several alternatives for reporting.  Unfortunately, many times the individual engaging in workplace misconduct in violation of the policy is a member of the leadership team who has been designated to receive complaints.  Make sure your policy has been distributed to all employees.  Make sure your management team is trained on the policy as a policy is worthless if those responsible for its enforcement do not understand it.

Investigate All Complaints And Claims, Even Those You Do Not Believe

            One of the unfortunate consequences of the increased attention on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the workplace is that there are likely to be individuals who attempt to make claims that are false either in terms of facts or context.  It is very tempting for employers to pay either no or less attention to those claims which they simply do not believe.  This is a huge mistake, HUGE.  For those of you that have been in the HR space for any length of time, you recognize that one of the principal precepts in this area is that it is the claim that you do not pay attention to that will come back to bite you.  Do not let that happen.  Your policy should contain an investigation protocol which is followed in every instance in which a complaint or claim of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct in the workplace is made.  There should be no exceptions.  The investigation protocol should require appropriate documentation and finally a report to the individual making the complaint.  To the extent that you conclude, after an appropriate investigation, that an individual lied or falsified allegations of sexual harassment or misconduct, you should always speak with your employment counsel before you make any further decisions.

Train, Train, Train

Critical to responding to, investigating and, ultimately, defending claims of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the workplace is training.  In this context, training includes training employees on what the policy is, training the management staff on their obligations to react and report consistent with the policy, and making sure that the individuals that are investigating a complaint or claim of sexual harassment or misconduct have the training and skills that they need to promptly, thoroughly and effectively investigate these claims and complaints.

Keep Your Eyes And Ears Open

More often than not, your leadership team will have a sense that something is “going on” in the workplace before a formal complaint or claim is brought to your attention.  If you become aware of a developing situation, do not wait in your office for someone to come to you; address it.  Have your HR professionals approach those involved and determine whether or not there is an issue or a problem.  Information gathered at this stage, more often than not, becomes very helpful in the event that a later claim is brought.

If You Are Going To Talk The Talk, You Have To Walk The Walk

I hate this phrase.  Having said that, it encapsulates the notion that if an employer is going to have an effective anti-harassment/discrimination policy, that policy has to be enforced uniformly, consistently and without exception.  An individual does not get a “pass” on a complaint of sexual harassment because he or she happens to be the highest producing [fill in the blank] you employ.  Further, the failure to enforce a policy selectively inevitably leads to a workplace where people are reluctant to come forward because they believe that “nothing will be done.”  Do not let that be your workplace.

The Employment Law Practice Group at Cooper Levenson is uniquely qualified to assist employers in all aspects where the law and employment intersect.  The lawyers in the Employment Law Practice Group regularly provide day-to-day and issue-to-issue compliance advice to our clients to guide them through the maze of employment laws, rules and regulations, helping our clients in making decisions which avoid litigation and let businesses focus on their business.

RUSSELL L. LICHTENSTEIN is a Partner and Executive Committee Member at Cooper Levenson.  He chairs the Labor & Employment Practice Group.  Mr. Lichtenstein is rated “AV” by Martindale Hubbell, is certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney, is certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and has been awarded the designation of “Super Lawyer” every year that award has been issued.  Mr. Lichtenstein is available in the firm’s Atlantic City office.  His direct dial number is (609) 572-7676