X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Judge Thomas http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=44436 PLAINTIFF LAWYER was hired as a contract partner by defendant law firm. An agreement clause set forth the terms of employment and compensation. He left his employment after 18 months. His complaint alleged that defendant failed to pay $16, 572.50 for 2002, $2,500 or more for 2003 and also sought $6, 538.46 for vacation pay for the period Feb. 15, 2003 through Feb. 28, 2003. The law firm sought dismissal, claiming that by voluntarily leaving employment, plaintiff forfeited “all additional compensation accrued.” Plaintiff argued that earned wages forfeiture clauses were unenforceable as against public policy. The court denied dismissal, ruling that the contract provision at issue raised a fact question whether “additional income” was income that may be forfeited. Citing Weiner v. Diebold Group and Cohen v. Lord, Day & Lord, it ruled that because contracts with earned income wages forfeiture clauses violated public policies such clauses entered into by attorneys would also be void.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.