Attorney Andrew Lieb appeared on FOX LIVE for a comprehensive analysis on the oath keepers founder convicted of sedition in Jan 6th attack. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb comments on how Kanye West sexual harassment allegations could affect adidas legally 

In New York State and under the New York State Human Rights Law, a discrimination lawsuit generally must be commenced within three-years of the wrong complained of for the lawsuit to be timely and actionable. 

However, a federal employment discrimination case must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the wrong for a federal claim, under Title VII, to be actionable. Yet, no federal lawsuit can be filed until the EEOC issues a right to sue letter.

So, what happens when an employee wants to file both a federal and state claim? Specifically, what happens if the right to sue letter isn't issued until after the expiration of the three-year New York State deadline? 

The Appellate Division, First Department, just answered that question in Gabin v Greenwich House, Inc.

The court ruled that NYS Administrative Code section 8-502(d) tolls (a/k/a, freezes) the counting of the three-year period under state law during the period from when a charge is first filed with the EEOC until the right to sue letter is issued.

People are often shocked to learn that their attorney can and, sometimes, should advise them to breach a contract. This shock is probably because of the known fact that if anyone else advises their client to breach a contract, even if it would be in their best interest, such advice could constitute an actionable wrong by the advising party that would get them sued for tortious interference with a contract.

However, that is not the case for attorneys. 

As the Appellate Division, Second Department, recently reminded us in Asamblea De Iglesias Christianas, Inc. v DeVito, 

"Absent a showing of fraud or collusion, or of a malicious or tortious act, an attorney is not liable to third parties for purported injuries caused by services performed on behalf of a client or advice offered to that client" (id.; see Doo v Berger, 227 AD2d 435, 436).

This is really important case law because sometimes the exposure (a/k/a, cost) of the breach is less than the cost of honoring the contract and therefore, businesses and individuals alike can be better off by not being bound by their word and a breach might be advisable. So, before you act on a contract that is giving you second thoughts, don't see your best friend, see your attorney.

SCOTUS' decision on Trump's taxes going to the Ways and Means Committee is being talked about as problematic because the Republicans will be taking control of the Committee and have no interest in the records. 

However, the law that was before SCOTUS doesn't just authorize the Chairman of Ways and Means to get the records, it also authorizes the Senate Finance Committee Chair to request and be furnished with such records. 

Specifically, Internal Revenue Code 6103(f)(1) reads:

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

So, why hasn't Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden requested the records given that the Democrats will maintain control of the Senate? That's the question. Inaction appears to be yet another example of the Democrats being ineffective at politics given they can easily moot the issue of the Republicans killing the Trump tax record review and report in the House. One can only guess why they don't act and aggressively seize the narrative.

Starting on February 19, 2023, employers are going to be subject to claims of retaliation if they discipline their workers for legally protected absences because Governor Hochul has signed A8092B. 

Specifically, Labor Law section 215 was amended to make clear that absences protected by federal, local, or state law, which result in discharge or penalty are now subject to a lawsuit that can result in liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

This new law further clarifies that actionable discipline includes "assessing any demerit, occurrence, any other point, or deductions from an allotted bank of time, which subjects or could subject an employee to disciplinary action, which may include but not be limited to failure to receive a promotion or loss of pay."

 Attorney Andrew Lieb Says "Alec Baldwin Should Have Kept His Mouth Shut" on Court TV. 

 Attorney Andrew Lieb appears on Court TV analyzing the Alec Baldwin "Rust" set shooting / lawsuit. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb appears on @courttv analyzing Alec Baldwin blaming "Rust" crew members in cross-complaint