EMPLOYMENT

& BENEFITS
LAW REPORT
A Newsletter from the Employee Benefits and
Employment and Labor Practice Groups

www.flastergreenberg.com Fall 2004

Editors’ Note… By Allen P. Fineberg & Paul J. Russoniello

Employee Benefits
In this issue we review three
diverse developments in the area of
Implications of the
employment and benefits law. Each
article addresses a different legal New Jersey Domestic
issue with the potential to signifi-
cantly affect different aspects of the
employer/employee relationship.
Partnership Act
First up is an overview of By Marc R. Garber
Allen P. Fineberg Paul J. Russoniello the recently enacted New Jersey The New Jersey
Domestic Partnership Act, which Legislature enacted the
became effective in July. The Act recognizes certain dependent and/or Domestic Partnership Act
beneficiary rights of same-sex partners as well as certain unmarried (N.J.S.A. 26:8A-1, et. seq.)
heterosexual couples above age 62. While there are still significant questions (the “Act”) in order to recog-
regarding the relationship between this new law and applicable federal laws nize (i) domestic partnerships
affecting employee benefits, it is important for all employers to be aware of and civil unions and (ii) recip-
their potential obligations under this Act. rocal beneficiary relationships Marc R. Garber
Next is an important update in the evolving case law regarding the validly entered into in another State or
enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment agreements. This article Commonwealth. The Act took effect on July 11,
addresses a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision overruling a lower 2004. Eligibility considerations and the proce-
court decision that had upheld a challenge to the enforceability of a dural requirements that need to be satisfied for
restrictive covenant. While many employers will be relieved by the Supreme gaining State recognition of eligible civil unions
Court’s ruling, the article points out that there are still clearly established and domestic partnerships, as well as the full
judicial requirements that must be met if such covenants are to be enforced. panoply of consequences thereof, are beyond the
Our last article discusses recently authorized health spending accounts, scope of this article, which is limited to the
which are pre-tax savings vehicles designed to facilitate the funding of certain employee benefits law implications of the Act.
types of employer-sponsored health plans. While the use and availability of
In connection with employee benefits, the
such plans are still evolving, health-spending accounts may well be a signifi-
cant part of the solution to the rising cost of insured health benefits for
Act requires or permits, as the case may be, the
employers and employees. non-working or uninsured member of same-sex
couples, and unmarried heterosexual couples age
As always, if you have questions or comments relating to topics addressed 62 and over, to be designated as dependents,
in this issue or any other matters concerning employment or benefits law, provided the couple has a New Jersey Certificate
please feel free to contact any of the members of our practice groups.

of Domestic Partnership (“Certificate”). The Act
requires changes to other New Jersey state laws
to facilitate the granting of dependent status and
In This Issue. . . in doing so differentiates among four distinct
groups of employees: (i) State employees,
Employee Benefits Implications of the (ii) employees of State-related entities or quasi-
New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 State entities; (iii) non-working individuals or
those to whom no group coverage is available;
New Jersey Supreme Court Reverses Recognition of and (iv) employees of private companies.
Whistleblower Claim for Refusal to Execute
Restrictive Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 State Employees • The Act’s coverage is
mandatory and broadest in application to State
Health Savings Accounts: “Consumer-Driven” Health Plans . . . . 5
(continued on page 4)

Copyright © 2004 Employment and Benefits Law Report • Flaster/Greenberg P.C.


New Jersey Supreme Court Reverses
Recognition of Whistleblower Claim for
Refusal to Execute Restrictive Covenant
By J. Philip Kirchner
ate last year (in
L the Fall 2003
issue of this
Report), we reported
on recent develop-
ments in New Jersey
law regarding the
enforcement of
J. Philip Kirchner restrictive covenants
in employment agree-
ments, including non-competition,
non-disclosure and non-solicitation
agreements. A new pronouncement by
the New Jersey Supreme Court has
inspired us to revisit that topic.
Of the many recently reported
decisions by the New Jersey appellate
courts, one case that has received a
great deal of attention in both legal
circles and the popular press is Maw v.
Advanced Clinical Communications,
Inc. Karol Maw had been employed as
a graphic designer by Advanced Clinical
Communications, Inc. (“ACCI”).
ACCI decided to require, for the first
time, that all its employees above a
certain level, including Maw, execute
an employment agreement that
contained non-compete, non-disclosure
and non-solicitation provisions. Had
she signed it, the non-compete clause
would have precluded Maw from work-
ing for a competitor of the company
anywhere, for a period of two years
after the termination of her employ-
ment with the company for any reason.
After ACCI refused to make any of the
revisions to the non-compete clause
requested by Maw, she refused to sign
the employment agreement. The
company then fired her.
Maw filed a complaint that asserted
whistleblower claims under both
common law and the New Jersey
Conscientious Employee Protection
Act (“CEPA”). CEPA provides an
employee with a cause of action against
her employer for an adverse employ-
ment action, including termination of
Employment and Benefits Law Report • Flaster/Greenberg P.C.
2
employment, that results from the access to any of ACCI’s trade secrets,
employee’s attempts to enforce a clearly the covenant might also have been
articulated mandate of public policy.
The typical CEPA claim involves a
unenforceable as to her because it was
not designed to protect any legitimate
whistleblower who has been fired for business interests of the employer.
attempting to convince her employer to Nonetheless, the trial court dismissed
comply with a public safety regulation, Maw’s complaint, concluding that her
an environmental protection law, a state termination was a private dispute that
or federal financial reporting law, or did not implicate any public policy con-
some similar mandate of public policy. cerns and therefore could not support
Maw asserted that the restrictive her whistleblower claims.
covenant contained in the employment On appeal, New Jersey’s interme-
agreement that ACCI insisted she exe- diate appellate court reversed the trial
cute violated New Jersey law and was court’s ruling. The Appellate Division
therefore unenforceable because it was reasoned that, if the restrictive
overly broad in both its duration and covenant con-
geographic scope. Maw tained in the
also argued that the employment
restrictive covenant was agreement was
unenforceable against her Companies should resist
not intended to
because she was not privy the urge to expand the duration protect the
to any of the company’s company’s
trade secrets in her posi- and geographic scope of the
legitimate busi-
tion. She argued that restrictive covenant beyond ness interest,
forcing her to sign an but merely to
unenforceable employ- what is reasonably necessary reduce
ment agreement violated to protect the company’s competition,
public policy because then firing her
ACCI had no legitimate legitimate business interests. for refusing to
business reason for sign it may
requiring her to sign it; have violated
and firing her for refusing public policy.
to sign it was unlawful retaliation. This potential violation of public policy
Under New Jersey law, a restrictive could, the Appellate Division conclud-
covenant must be reasonable in both ed, support Maw’s whistleblower
duration and geographic scope under claims.
the particular circumstances of the case. The Appellate Division’s decision
It must be designed to protect only the sent shockwaves throughout the New
employer’s legitimate business interests, Jersey legal community. Maw’s whistle-
such as trade secrets, and not merely to blower claim, if sustained, could have
stifle competition. Although the trial jeopardized all restrictive covenant agree-
court dismissed Maw’s complaint for ments in New Jersey. Most restrictive
failing to state a claim without reaching covenant cases arise when the former
the merits of her claim, it appears that employer attempts to prevent a departed
the restrictive covenant drafted by employee from competing with it on the
ACCI and presented to Maw may have basis of a restrictive covenant executed
been overbroad and overreaching, at by the employee while employed by the
least as to its geographic scope and former employer. Maw’s case arose in a
probably also as to its duration. Because
it also appears that Maw did not have (continued on page 3)

New Jersey Supreme Court Reverses
Recognition of Whistleblower Claim for
Refusal to Execute Restrictive Covenant
totally different way. Her claim that fir-
ing her in retaliation for refusing to sign
a restrictive covenant that violated New
Jersey public policy gave rise to a whistle-
blower claim under CEPA, was a novel
claim under New Jersey law. Employers
feared that employees, emboldened by
the Maw decision, would feel free to
refuse to sign employment agreements
containing restrictive covenants or,
worse, attempt to abrogate already exe-
cuted agreements on the basis that they
violated public policy.
The fear engendered by the inter-
mediate Maw decision has been amelio-
rated, at least for the time being. In a
recently published decision, the New
Jersey Supreme Court reversed the
Appellate Division’s decision. The
Supreme Court concluded that ACCI’s
requirement that Maw execute a
restrictive covenant agreement was,
essentially, a private dispute between
Maw and her employer that did not
implicate public policy. The Court held
that Maw’s refusal to comply with the
requirement was not protected by
CEPA, and ACCI was, therefore, free
to fire her.
The Supreme Court’s decision
was based upon the language of CEPA,
which prohibits an employer from
This report, published as a service to Flaster/Greenberg clients and interested readers, is for general use
and information. The content should not be interpreted as rendering legal advice on any specific matter.
3
retaliating against an employee who
“objects to, or refuses to participate in
any activity, policy or practice which
the employee reasonably believes is
incompatible with a clear mandate of
public policy concerning public health,
safety or welfare or protection of the
environment.” N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(c)(3).
To find a violation of a clear mandate
of public policy, the court
reasoned, requires that the
activity about which the
employee has complained
“must have public ramifi-
cations.” It concluded
that the private dispute
between an employer and
its employee over the
terms of a non-compete
agreement “does not
implicate the violation of
a clear mandate of public
policy as contemplated
by CEPA.”
Although the Supreme Court’s
decision in Maw appears to signal a
tightening of the law allowing enforce-
ment of whistleblower claims, at the
same time, it reaffirms that reasonably
drafted, narrowly tailored restrictive
covenants are enforceable under New
Jersey law. While dismissing Maw’s
whistleblower claims, the Supreme
Court made it clear that restrictive
covenants that are drafted to protect an
employer’s legitimate business interests
will be enforced.
Planning Tips • In order to max-
imize the likelihood that a restrictive
covenant will be enforced, employers
should follow these guidelines:

When considering whether to impose
an employment agreement containing
a restrictive covenant on its employees,
a company should first identify which
of its employees have access to confi-
dential information, including such
(continued from page 2)
things as company trade secrets, cus-
tomer lists, pricing information and
marketing strategies, and the company
should limit restrictive covenants with
non-compete provisions to those
employees.

The company should clearly define in
the restrictive covenant the protectable
business interests that are the subject
of the restrictive covenant.

The company should clearly recite
in the employment agreement the
consideration being given to the
employee for his or her agreement
to the restrictions and state that the
consideration is contingent upon the
employee executing and accepting the
terms of the restrictive covenant
agreement.

Companies should resist the urge to
expand the durationand geographic
scope of the restrictive covenant
beyond what is reasonably necessary
to protect the company’s legitimate
business interests. A restrictive
covenant that is found by a court to
be unenforceable against a former
employee because it is overbroad will
jeopardize all of the other restrictive
covenant agreements with the com-
pany’s other employees. A skilled
employment lawyer can help the
company determine the appropriate
geographic scope and duration of a
reasonable, enforceable restrictive
covenant.

Finally, the company must take
appropriate measures to protect the
confidentiality of its trade and busi-
ness secrets. Those measures should
be communicated to all employees,
and the company should be diligent
in assuring that its procedures are
followed and that its confidential
information is protected from
disclosure.

www.flastergreenberg.com

Employee Benefits Implications of the
New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act
employees. The Act requires the State
of New Jersey to offer dependent cov-
erage to the non-working or uninsured
member of a couple that has a
Certificate for health care, dental and
retirement plan purposes. This applies
to coverage under the State’s Health
Benefits Programs, the Public
Employee’s Retirement System, the
Police and Firemen’s Retirement
System, the Judicial Retirement
Systems, the State Police Retirement
System and the Teacher’s Pension and
Annuity Fund.
Employees of State-Related
Entities • These employers (such as
counties, municipalities and boards of
education) may, but need not, opt into
coverage under the Act. To opt in,
the employer entity simply adopts a
resolution to that effect and would
therefore treat the non-working or
uninsured member of a couple with a
Certificate as a dependent under the
above-referenced State plans. Any other
type of health, dental or retirement
plans sponsored by these employers
would require individual changes by
the sponsoring employer.
Individual Coverage for Health
or Dental Benefits • The Act applies
to every individual health or dental ben-
efits policy delivered, issued or executed
in New Jersey and approved by the
State’s Department of Banking and
Insurance. Such coverage is typically
purchased by the unemployed or those
people employed by a company that
does not offer benefits. Of course, the
plan’s cost will increase when adding a
dependent.
Employees of Private
Employers • This classification is
broken into two categories: (i) small
employers and (ii) all other employers.
The Act further differentiates between
the requirements for health and dental
plans and retirement plans.
Small Employer Health Plan •
The Act applies to “small employer
health plans,” which are programs
offered by a private employer, provid-
ed the employer has at least two but
Employment and Benefits Law Report • Flaster/Greenberg P.C.
4
(continued from page 1)
fewer than 50 employees and provides specific preemptive provisions. It is
medical and hospital or dental benefits. unclear how coverage would be imple-
The Act directs the State Insurance mented and what the tax treatment
Commission to make changes to the may be, as these federal laws may
limited number of control. It
state-authorized remains to be
small employer seen when the
plans, in order to …the tax implications of U.S. Department
provide for of Labor or the
dependent cover- coverage need to be considered courts provide
age for persons because the federal tax code guidance or
covered by the Act. rulings on the
Small employers in defines “spouse” more narrowly preemption of
New Jersey are not the Act whether
required to follow than the Act. ERISA-covered
the Act for retire- plans that desire
ment benefits, to opt in to the
although they may. Act will be per-
Large Private Employers • mitted to follow the Act’s require-
Under the Act, plans with 50 or more ments, or at least those that deal more
employees are not required to afford with plan administration than the
dependent status for health or dental actual provision of benefits.
plan coverage to the non-working or Guidance also is needed for multi-
uninsured member of a domestic state or multi-national private employers
partnership civil union with a Certifi- that are maintaining health plans or
cate, although they may do so. On an retirement plans and who desire to opt
elective basis, to facilitate voluntary in to the Act. For example, does the Act
opt-ins by larger private employers, apply to New Jersey-based employees
the insurance contract underlying the of a Nevada company? Does the
health benefits or dental plan must mandatory coverage rule for small
contain the appropriate provisions. employer plans apply if the New Jersey
Vision and Disability Plans • facility has fewer than 50 employees,
A vision-only plan or disability plan even though the employer has thou-
(regardless of the size of the employer) sands of employees nationwide? What
need not contain provisions recogniz- rights should Ohio employees have
ing dependent status for non-working where the parent company is in New
or uninsured members of a domestic Jersey and recognizes civil unions in
partnership. New Jersey? Finally, the tax implica-
tions of coverage need to be consid-
Retirement Plans • Small and ered because the federal tax code
large private employers’ retirement plans defines “spouse” more narrowly than
are not required to treat the non-work- the Act. Therefore, the income tax
ing or uninsured member of a domestic treatment of coverage may differ for
partnership civil union as a dependent, the non-working or uninsured members
although the private employer may of civil unions.

decide to provide such coverage.
The author thanks his colleague Nicole T. Donoian,
Other Laws • Employer-sponsored an associate in the firm’s Family Law Practice
group health plans are also covered by Group, for her valuable guidance and assistance in
federal laws such as: (i) the Employee preparing this article. A more comprehensive dis-
Retirement Income Security Act of cussion of the new Act, prepared by Steven
Sacharow, a shareholder and head of the firm’s
1974, as amended (“ERISA”); (ii) the Family Law Practice Group, with the assistance of
Family and Medical Leave Act, and (iii) Ms. Dononian, was published in the New Jersey
the continuation coverage requirements Law Journal (a copy of which is available on the
firm’s web site at www.flastergreenberg.com).
of “COBRA”, some of which contain
 5
Health Savings Accounts: “Consumer-Driven” Health Plans
By Elliot D. Raff
s part of last year’s Medicaid law,
A Congress created a new tax-advantaged
account that may help employers con-
tain the cost of providing health insurance.
Called “health savings accounts” or
“HSAs,” they represent the latest attempt
to introduce greater consumer responsibility
for health care choices.
Elliot D. Raff
What is an HSA?
An HSA is like an individual retirement account (“IRA”)
that can be used to pay for health expenses. Contributions
are made on a pre-tax basis by individuals or employers.
Contributions made by an individual are deductible and not
included in income when made by an employer. Further,
earnings on the HSA grow tax-free. Most important, unlike
a traditional health flexible spending account, an HSA does
not have the “use it or lose it” feature. Unused amounts
rollover year after year. For 2004, the contribution limits are
$2,400 for single coverage and $5,150 for family coverage
(or the actual annual deductible if lower).
Who can establish an HSA?
Not everyone can establish an HSA. To be eligible, the
individual must:
1. Be covered by a “high deductible health plan”
or “HDHP”.
2. Not be covered by any other plan that is not an HDHP
(with a few exceptions).
3. Not be entitled to Medicare.
4. Not be claimed as a dependent on any other person’s
tax return.
What is an HDHP?
A health plan is considered an HDHP if it has the
following features:
Coverage Annual Deductible Annual out-of-pocket limit
Individual $1,000 or more up to $5,000
Family $2,000 or more up to $10,000
The “annual out-of-pocket limit” is the maximum expo-
sure individuals and families have for self-funding their health
care expenses.
Given the high deductible, the HDHP should be viewed
as providing catastrophic coverage; i.e., for major illnesses
and hospitalizations. Not surprisingly, it is the combination
of the high deductible, the annual contribution limit and the
higher out-of-pocket limit that makes employers reluctant to
sponsor/provide an HDHP with an HSA. On the other
hand, as discussed below, it is this very feature that propo-
nents tout as having the greatest potential impact on health
care economics.
Is there any other coverage that is allowed?
As noted above, generally, an individual cannot be cov-
ered by any other plan that is not an HDHP. The law allows
certain limited types of coverage, for instance, workers’ com-
pensation, homeowner’s insurance and insurance that pro-
vides coverage for specific diseases. One can also have insur-
ance for specific types of medical expenses, such as expenses
incidental to disability, dental or vision care, and long-term
care insurance.
One type of coverage that has raised potentially signifi-
cant issues is prescription drug coverage. The IRS has ruled
that prescription drug coverage is not a type of coverage that
is permitted in addition to the HDHP. Thus, prescription
drug coverage must satisfy the HDHP requirements; i.e.,
have an annual deductible at least equal to the limits indicat-
ed above. Subsequent guidance recognized that this would
be problematic for individuals enrolled in plans that other-
wise meet the definition of an HDHP. Consequently, the
IRS further ruled that until January 1, 2006, an individual
will be eligible to maintain an HSA if he or she is covered by
an HDHP and a separate plan (or rider to the plan) provid-
ing coverage for prescription drugs before the minimum
deductible is met (otherwise, the high deductible will apply
to the prescription drug coverage as well). “Other coverage”
would also include health insurance provided by a spouse’s
employer, including under a traditional flexible spending
account. Thus, care must be taken to ensure that the “no
other coverage rule” is satisfied.
How Does an HSA Differ from an FSA?
A health care flexible spending account (“FSA”) is usually
funded with employee pre-tax contributions as part of a cafe-
teria plan. As most people who contribute to an FSA know,
amounts in an FSA are subject to a “use it or lose it” rule.
Thus, individuals who contribute to an FSA often find them-
selves scurrying to incur medical expenses at year’s end so as
to avoid losing the FSA balance, for instance, buying new
eyeglasses, going to the dentist, having a general physical,
etc. Critics maintain that this type of health care consump-
tion is wasteful — the patient is looking for treatment solely
to avoid negative financial consequences — and symptomatic
of the prevailing attitude that individuals do not take finan-
cial responsibility for their health care.
By contrast, amounts contributed to and held by an
HSA are non-forfeitable — they rollover from year to
year. Also, contributions are credited with earnings,
which are also non-forfeitable. Thus, an HSA is a way to
accumulate a fund to pay for health care in the future.
Proponents of HSAs maintain that individuals should be
required to assume greater financial responsibility for treat-
ment. Just as consumers shop for the best price before buy-
ing a computer or a car, people should consider the financial
consequences of a course of treatment and consider whether
(continued on page 6)
www.flastergreenberg.com
 6

Health Savings Accounts: “Consumer-Driven” Health Plans

(continued from page 5)

to incur the expenses. This would require, for example, dia-

logue with a physician about whether tests are necessary and
whether there are less costly alternatives. In addition, propo-
nents claim, this should lead to greater competition among
physicians leading to more economical, more appropriate
care and less defensive practice. Proponents thus view HSAs
as having the potential to lead to fundamental changes in
health care consumption.
It should also be noted that many claim HSAs will save
employers money. It is expected that the premium for an
HDHP would be considerably lower than typical health
plans. Some, if not all, of these savings would be passed
through to the employee in the form of an HSA contribu-
tion. The employee can then make up the difference in the
higher annual deductible through pre-tax contributions to
the HSA. The tax benefit further mitigates the impact of the
higher deductible. For example, assume single coverage with
a $300 annual deductible costs $5,400 per year, of which the
employer pays $3,000, and the employee pays the remaining
$2,400 and also contributes $2,000 to an FSA. If an HDHP
costs 30 percent less, then the total annual cost of insurance
is only $3,780 (instead of $5,400). The employer can keep
the employee contribution the same and contribute the
$1,620 difference to an HSA (more than making up the
$700 increase in the annual deductible) or can otherwise
keep part of the savings, for instance, contributing $700 to
an HSA and keeping $920. Of course, the employer can no
longer maintain the FSA, but the employee can make pre-tax
contributions up to the $2,400 aggregate annual contribu-
tion limit to the HSA to cover his or her uninsured medical
expenses. An HSA also can be used to pay premiums for
“Health savings accounts” or “HSAs”
represent the latest attempt to introduce
greater consumer responsibility for
health care choices.
retiree health insurance, post-termination COBRA coverage
and long-term care insurance.
Additionally, it is expected that the rate of premium infla-
tion for an HDHP will be lower. As HSAs are new, there is
little empirical data on the savings. However, at least one sur-
vey shows enrollment in these arrangements to be increasing,
and we would expect continuing study of these programs.
Conclusion
This article provides only some highlights of HSAs and
explains the policy rationale. There are additional legal issues
to consider before implementing an HSA program. Since
HSAs are new, there remain many unanswered questions.
Nonetheless, it is expected that the IRS will continue to pro-
duce guidance clarifying the application of the HSA rules. As
this happens, many expect insurance carriers to introduce
and promote HDHP/HSA programs. Whether such pro-
grams will actually change consumer behavior and attitudes,
or yield substantial overall cost savings is still uncertain.
However, these programs represent the leading edge in
group health plan design.

Employee Benefits & Employment and Labor Law Practice Groups

Jeffrey A. Cohen Kenneth S. Goodkind J. Philip Kirchner
(856) 382-2240 (856) 661-2273 (856) 661-2268
jeff.cohen@flastergreenberg.com ken.goodkind@flastergreenberg.com phil.kirchner@flastergreenberg.com

Allen P. Fineberg Stephen M. Greenberg Vincent J. Nolan III

(856) 661-2264 (856) 661-2261 (856) 661-2275
allen.fineberg@flastergreenberg.com steve.greenberg@flastergreenberg.com vincent.nolan@flastergreenberg.com

Richard J. Flaster Lizanne V. Hoerst Elliot D. Raff

(856) 661-2260 (856) 382-2215 (856) 382-2241
rick.flaster@flastergreenberg.com liz.hoerst@flastergreenberg.com elliot.raff@flastergreenberg.com

Marc R. Garber (Of Counsel) Michael D. Homans Paul J. Russoniello

(856) 382-2237 (856) 661-2271 (856) 661-2270
marc.garber@flastergreenberg.com michael.homans@flastergreenberg.com paul.russoniello@flastergreenberg.com

Employment and Benefits Law Report • Flaster/Greenberg P.C.

 7

& Merrill Lynch and

The Fox/Penberthy Group
present

Defined Benefit Plans:

The Impact on Your Financial Statement
Attention All Professionals and Plan Fiduciaries:
Sponsors of many Defined Benefit retirement programs have seen under-funded plan liabilities affecting
their financial statements. Flaster/Greenberg P.C., Merrill Lynch and the Fox/Penberthy Group present
an educational forum to discuss how Defined Benefit Plans can affect the overall financial wellness of a company.
CPE credits will be available for CPAs attending the October 12th program.
Topics include:
• New Administrative Requirements for Plan Compliance • Utilization of Statistical Analysis to Provide Continuing
• Recent Legislation Affecting Contribution Obligations Solutions to What-if Scenarios
• The Cash Balance Option • Accessing Resources to Improve Overall Costs and
• Improving Your Investment Policy Statement Coordination of Your Plan

Speakers:
Elliot D. Raff, Esquire Albert A. Fox, CIMA, CFP, ARPC Edward M. Penberthy, CIMA, CFP, ARPC
Flaster/Greenberg P.C. Vice President, Merrill Lynch Vice President, Merrill Lynch

Dates & Locations:

Tuesday, October 5th Tuesday, October 12th Wednesday, October 13th
8:00 - 10:00 a.m. 8:00 - 10:00 a.m. 8:00 - 10:00 a.m.
PARSIPPANY, NJ NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ
Sheraton Hotel Hyatt Regency Hotel Hyatt Regency Hotel
199 Smith Road Two Albany Street Two Albany Street

Call STEPHANIE (Merrill Lynch) at 888-287-9258 to reserve your seat today.

SEATING IS LIMITED. Registration will be from 8:00 to 8:15 a.m. Continental breakfast will be served.

Practice Group Services

Employee Benefits

Design and implementation of qualified
retirement plans

Fiduciary counseling

ERISA and other employee benefits litigation

Design and implementation of Employee Stock
Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and use of ESOPs in
corporate buy-outs

Executive compensation and other
non-qualified deferred compensation programs

Stock options, phantom stock and other incentive
stock programs

Cafeteria plans and other welfare benefit programs

IRS and DOL audits and compliance
Employment and Labor

Employment discrimination counseling and litigation

Preparation and enforcement of noncompete agreements

Human Resource counseling and training

Preparation of employee handbooks

Guidance concerning sexual harassment and
discrimination issues

Hiring and disability, termination and discipline
counseling

Union-management relations advice

Whistleblower litigation

Wrongful discharge and/or breach of employment
agreements

www.flastergreenberg.com
 PRSRT STD
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Bellmawr, NJ
Permit No. 58

1810 Chapel Avenue West Return Service Requested

Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-4609

Be our guest on Tuesday, October 19 Office Locations

Register by e-mail: firm@flastergreenberg.com
Commerce Center 216 North Avenue
1810 Chapel Avenue West Cranford, NJ 07016
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-4609 (908) 245-8021
(856) 661-1900
2900 Fire Road, Suite 102A
1818 Market Street, Suite 3402 Egg Harbor Township, NJ
Quarterly Business Outlook Philadelphia, PA 19103 08234
(215) 569-1022 (609) 645-1881
Proudly co-sponsored by:
190 S. Main Road 913 North Market Street
Flaster/Greenberg P.C. Vineland, NJ 08360 Suite 702
Chamber of Commerce Southern New Jersey (856) 691-6200 Wilmington, DE 19810
Forum featuring area business leaders who will discuss (302) 351-1910
the Southern New Jersey economy in five sectors
Speakers:
Economic Overview – Dr. Ted Crone, Vice President,
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Banking – Thomas Bracken, President and CEO,
Sun National Bank
Health Care – Chester Kaletkowski, President and CEO,
South Jersey Healthcare Regional Medical Center
Practice Areas
Bankruptcy • Business and Corporate Services • Closely-Held and
Real Estate – Joseph Coradino, Executive Vice President,
Retail Division, Integration Leader, Family Businesses • Commercial Litigation • Commercial Real
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust Estate • Construction Law • Employee Benefits • Employment
Technology – Steven Selfridge, President and CEO, Acsis, Inc. and Labor Law • Environmental Law • Estate Planning and
Administration • Family Law and Adoption • Financial Work-
Clarion Hotel & Conference Center, Cherry Hill, NJ Outs • Health Care • Land Use • Pension and Retirement Plans
Registration and Breakfast: 7:45 a.m. • Securities Regulation • Taxation • Technology and Emerging
Program: 8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Businesses • Trademark and Copyright Licensing and Protection