Inclusion in Best Lawyers^® is regarded, by both the legal profession and the public, as the highest form of professional accolade. Best Lawyers^® has been featured in national newspapers and magazines, including The New York Times, Forbes, and The Washington Post, and is the basis of more than 50 "Best Lawyers" features in regional newspapers and metropolitan magazines every year. Corporate Counsel magazine, which excerpts their lists regularly, calls Best Lawyers^® "the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice."

Inclusion in Best Lawyers^® is based on an exhaustive and rigorous peer-review survey. Lawyers are not allowed a fee to be listed, and Best Lawyers^® publishes an advertisement-free book each year to honor all those chosen -- something that no other survey does. The current edition of Best Lawyers^® is based on 1.6 million confidential evaluations by only the top attorneys in the country. In addition, Best Lawyers^® conducts extensive telephone interviews with leading attorneys throughout its balloting process.

Joel and Ralph were also selected as New Jersey Super Lawyers in the April 2006 issue of New Jersey Monthly Magazine. The magazine cited Joel in the field of Business Litigation and Ralph in Employment Litigation. Their selection was the culmination of an exhaustive, four-stage selection process, which began last fall, in which 35,000 nomination ballots were mailed to New Jersey lawyers who have been licensed to practice for at least five years.

JOHN P. BEIRNE JOINS CL&L

We are pleased to announce that John P. Beirne joined the firm as Of Counsel to Chair the Workers' Compensation Defense Department. John brings to the firm over 28 years of experience as a Workers' Compensation litigator. He began practicing law in 1977. In 1989, John left private practice to work as house counsel for the CIGNA Insurance Company, specializing exclusively in the defense of workers' compensation cases. In 1995, John returned to private practice, again specializing in the defense of workers' compensation claims.

John obtained his undergraduate degree from St. Peter's College and his juris doctor degree from Seton Hall University School of Law. He served as a Commissioner in the Township of Lyndhurst from 1993 to 1997, overseeing the Department of Public Works. He presently sits on the Planning Board and Rent Leveling Boards in Lyndhurst, and serves as a member of his parish finance council.

NEW AND NOTEWORTHY

* The East Rutherford Board of Education unanimously reappointed Thomas R. Kobin as Board Counsel at its reorganization meeting held May 4, 2006. Tom has served as Board Counsel for the East Rutherford Board of Education since December 2004.

* Chasan Leyner & Lamparello continued its proud tradition of supporting National Law Day on May 1, 2006. Mitzy Galis- Mendendez, John M. Lago and Michael D. Witt represented the firm at various Law Day events. Mitzy participated in a Mock Town Hall program in the Township of North Bergen in which high school students acted in various "mock" government positions in an effort to expose them to the work of local government and the decisions made by municipal officals every day. Mitzy, John, and Michael also participated in the "Legal Info Expo" sponsored by the Hudson Vicinage Advisory Committee on Minority Concerns. The program allowed the public to obtain answers to questions in a number of different legal areas. John discussed topics in Immigration Law, Mitzy provided information on Municipal Court matters, and Michael spoke about legal careers. Law Day was established in 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to strengthen our understanding of liberty, justice and equality under the law.

* Ralph J. Lamparello was sworn in as a Trustee of the New Jersey State Bar Association on May 18, 2006 during the annual New Jersey State Bar Association Conference in Atlantic City. Ralph has the distinction of being one of only two attorneys in the state to be selected to simultaneously serve as a Trustee of the New Jersey State Bar Association and Trustee of the New Jersey State Bar Foundation.

CASE NOTES

* On Monday, April 3, 2006, in a case of national interest, Ralph J. Lamparello and Michael D. Witt appeared before the Supreme Court of New Jersey for oral argument in I/M/O Petition of Michael G. Venezia. The case involves New Jersey's "Shield Law," which protects journalists from being compelled to answer questions about their sources and information obtained from those sources. The case arises from an article that appeared in The Record, a widely circulated northern New Jersey newspaper, containing defamatory statements about Michael Venezia, a former probationary police officer for the Borough of Leonia. The reporter who wrote the article refused to appear for a deposition regarding the defamatory statements in Mr. Venezia's civil action against the newspaper and the reporter, invoking the Shield Law's protections. Challenging the bounds of the Shield Law, Ralph argued that it should not apply in this case, as the reporter's sole claimed source -- the Mayor of Leonia -- denied making the defamatory remarks attributed to him in the article. Ralph further argued that the reporter waived any Shield Law privileges when he gave voluntary statements about the article to the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office and to counsel for the Borough of Leonia. Michael and Cindy N. Vogelman prepared the Petition for Certification and appellate briefs on Mr. Venezia's behalf. The reporter and The Record, were joined in their opposition to Mr. Venezia by several amici curiae, including the Associated Press, ABC, Inc., The New York Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Gannett Company, publisher of USA Today and 91 other daily newspapers nationwide. The case was reported in the April 3, 2006 issue of The New Jersey Lawyer and The Star-Ledger on Tuesday April 4, 2006.

* On February 14, 2006, Thomas R. Kobin successfully argued before the New Jersey Supreme Court in a political retaliation case filed against one of the firm's public entity clients. The plaintiffs claimed they were not promoted based on their political affiliation. Representing the lead defendant, Tom prevailed at both the trial level and before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. Although the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Certification and agreed to hear the case, it issued a decision dismissing the plaintiffs' case.

* On March 6, 2006, Ralph J. Lamparello and John L. Shahdanian II appeared before the New Jersey Supreme Court for oral argument on behalf of the County of Hudson in Potente v. County of Hudson, et al. The case was brought by a former Hudson County employee, who alleged that he was terminated because of a disability in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The matter was assigned to Chasan Leyner after the Appellate Division had affirmed an adverse trial verdict against the County. Cindy N. Vogelman and John L. Shahdanian II prepared the successful Petition for Certification. At oral argument, Ralph J. Lamparello argued two distinct issues; namely: (1) whether plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict by the trial court based on the allegation of failure to accommodate; and (2) the appropriateness of an award of prejudgment interest against a public entity in a Law Against Discrimination case. As is its custom, the Supreme Court reserved decision after hearing oral argument.

* Joseph B. O'Toole obtained a verdict in Joseph et al. v. Kerr in favor of an Allstate insured following a three-day trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. The parties stipulated liability and the matter was tried on the issue of the three plaintiffs' damages. Two of the plaintiffs were subject to the Lawsuit Threshold, while the third plaintiff was subject to the zero tort threshold. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant on the two Lawsuit Threshold cases and awarded the third plaintiff $5,000, which was less than the settlement offer made to the plaintiff prior to trial.

* John V. Mallon and Antonietta Vitale achieved a Summary Judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hunterdon County, on behalf of Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company in a Declaratory Judgment action in which Allstate's insured sought insurance coverage under his homeowner's liability policy for claims brought against him in a lawsuit arising from a fight. The Court ruled that the intentional acts exclusion of the insurance policy with Allstate barred coverage and dismissed the action against Allstate.

* Cindy N. Vogelman and John V. Mallon successfully defended an appeal filed by the wife of a contractor who was killed as a result of a flash fire at the client's house. The contractor had been hired to refinish the defendant's hardwood floors. The combination of the floor laquer, improper ventilation and an operating pilot light on a kitchen stove led to the fire. The plaintiff argued that the homeowners had a duty to warn the contractor of the danger created by the lit pilot light. The Appellate Judges agreed that the homeowners had no duty to the contractor to warn of dangers inherent to the work he was performing and affirmed the trial court's dismissal.

* Thomas R. Kobin and Mitzy Galis-Menendez successfully defended the Township of North Bergen against an appeal filed by a property owner who failed to pay property taxes for over 12 years. The State of New Jersey filed a condemnation action against the defendant property owner seeking to acquire a portion of his property. The State deposited $150,000 with the court as compensation for the taking, and the defendant filed a Motion to release the funds. In opposition to the Motion, Tom and Mitzy argued that the defendant was disqualified from receiving any of the money because of his longstanding tax delinquency. The trial court agreed with North Bergen's position and denied the Motion, a decision which was upheld on appeal.

* Mitzy Galis-Menendez obtained an acquittal before the Hon. Nino Falcone, J.M.C. on behalf of a client charged with simple assault as well as a conviction against the cross-complainant for assault. Mitzy was able to demonstrate that a verbal altercation escalated and that the cross-complainant attempted to assault the client.

* Joseph B. O'Toole successfully defended an Allstate insured in a three-day trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County. The jury deliberated for 10 minutes before reaching a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff, who was subject to the Lawsuit Threshold, alleged that he suffered cervical bulges, a lumbar herniation and annular tear as a result of the accident. The jury determined that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident.

HAZARDS OF RESUME SCREENING

It is popular now for employers to use screening tests, often administered on the Internet, to weed out a large portion of applicants for job openings before making the more difficult selections from among those who survive that first cut. Such tests are supposed to measure cognitive ability, personality characteristics, or, in fewer instances, the ability to perform in a simulation of the duties that the job requires. The easily administered and scored screening tests have their appeal, especially if you are charged with filling, say, 10 positions from 100 people who have submitted résumés.

A downside to screening tests is the risk that rejected applicants may persuade a court that the tests essentially were a tool to accomplish prohibited discrimination, even though that may not have been the employer's intent. For example, an employment test that impacts racial minorities or women disproportionately could lead to liability unless the employer can show that the test is sufficiently related to the job and is necessary to the employer's business.

Another potential pitfall stems from the prohibition in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against medical testing of job applicants. There sometimes is a fine distinction between acceptable personality or psychological tests and prohibited medical tests. The screening of applicants also could run afoul of some state statutes that protect against invasions of privacy.

When individuals adversely affected by a personality test challenged the test in federal litigation under the ADA, an appellate court struck down the test. The test, at least in some of its 502 questions, was a prohibited examination of the applicants' mental health. Its true or false questions went much farther than the acceptable lines of inquiry about matters such as working well in groups or in a fast-paced office. Instead, they ventured into the realm of psychiatric disorders. In this case, a prospective manager of a rent-to-own store could not be required to give true or false answers to statements such as: "I see things or animals or people around me that others do not see"; "At times I have fits of laughing and crying that I cannot control"; or "My soul sometimes leaves my body."