Skip to content
Photo of Robert Bernstein

Rob Bernstein focuses his practice on labor and employment exclusively for management, with an emphasis in litigation and counseling. With over 30 years of experience, Rob has represented many multinational and domestic corporations in a wide range of industries. His practice extends to numerous jurisdictions across the United States, involving most workplace issues, including class and collective actions, employee benefits and trade secret litigation.

Prior to joining the firm, Rob chaired the National Labor and Employment Department Steering Committee of a management-side only, national labor and employment law firm, where he also served as one of five members of the Firm’s Executive Committee and was a member of its Board of Directors. Rob also was partner at a top-15 international law firm, where he headed its global employment practice.

Characterizing its own precedent as “inconsistent” and “confusing,” the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a published opinion earlier this month, undertook to “clarify” the “correct standard” for establishing  a
Continue Reading Third Circuit ‘Clarifies’ that a Single Racial Slur May be Sufficiently ‘Severe’ to Create a Hostile Work Environment

The proposed overtime rules will not go into effect on Dec. 1. In a closely-watched case brought by 21 states (and joined by numerous business organizations) challenging the Department of
Continue Reading Court Stays DOL Overtime Rule, Holds Increased Salary Test Impermissibly ‘Supplants’ Duties Tests

In a pair of published opinions, raising novel employment issues in this Circuit, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the test for determining whether a “temporary” worker is an
Continue Reading Third Circuit Espouses Fact-Sensitive Inquiries in Considering Joint Employer Liability and Compensation for Meal Periods: What Employers Can Do to Brighten the Lines

In an important “win” for employers that has potentially widespread implications, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reinstated summary judgment dismissing claims asserted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that Ford Motor Company failed to accommodate a former employee’s request under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to telecommute up to four days per week. The Court reaffirmed the “general rule that, with few exceptions, ‘an employee who does not come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise.’” Notably, the Court observed: “The [ADA] requires employers to reasonably accommodate their disabled employees; it does not endow all disabled persons with a job – or job schedule – of their choosing.”

The plaintiff in EEOC v. Ford Motor Company, Jane Harris, worked as a resale steel buyer, a position which “required teamwork, meetings with suppliers and stampers, and on site ‘availability to participate in face-to-face interactions,’ [which] necessitate[d]… regular and predictable attendance.” The Court stressed the position was “highly interactive” and required “good, old-fashioned interpersonal skills.”

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Rejects Telecommuting Demand from Employee

Though it has long been a common practice for in-house counsel to respond to routine (and not so routine) demand letters, a recent New Jersey District Court decision should cause in-house counsel serious concern when doing so in the future. In Bourhill v. Sprint Nextel Corp., the Court allowed into evidence a portion of a letter written by an in-house attorney, prior to the action’s commencement, explaining why counsel’s position was factually meritless, but offering to entertain counsel’s invitation to resolve the matter so as to avoid litigation (the Court opinion is attached for your convenience). And this decision affects in-house counsel’s exchanges not only in the employment context, but also extends to all litigation.
Continue Reading New Jersey Federal Court Cautions Employers When Responding to Even Routine Demand Letters