The law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner Connie Montoya has been selected as an honoree in the Diversity Initiative category of the 2023 New York Law Journal New York Legal Awards. The Journal recognized winners in the Diversity Initiative category for their "significant contributions to progressing diversity and inclusion efforts in New York’s legal community." Montoya was among seven honorees selected from the New York bar.

The U.S. law firm Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner Connie Montoya was recently recognized by the Philippine Consulate General in New York as one of 2022's Distinguished Filipino Women. In a March 30 ceremony, the Consulate General honored Montoya and three other Filipina-Americans for their contributions in breaking the glass ceiling and empowering women.

The law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partners Connie Montoya and Carlos A. Ortiz were recently named to the Lawyers of Color's inaugural "Nation's Best" list in the Eastern and Midwest regional categories, respectively. The list recognizes senior-level attorneys who have achieved noteworthy accomplishments in their field and demonstrate a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion in the legal profession. Honorees were selected by a committee formed by Lawyers of Color, consisting organization members along with other diverse leaders and advisors. Those selected for inclusion on the list were recognized at regional receptions held across the United States.

Read about Hinshaw partner Connie Montoya's recent feature by the influential Filipino publication the Philippine Daily Inquirer in a story about "10 Filipino American LGBTQ+ changemakers you might not know about."

As part of its Pride Month coverage, ACA International profiled Hinshaw partner Connie Montoya in a member spotlight. In the article, Montoya reflects on the personal significance of Pride Month, current challenges confronting the LGBTQIA+ community, and steps companies can take to create more inclusive working environments for their LGBTQIA+ employees.

Judy Selby, Heather McArn, and Connie Montoya participated in virtual programs jointly hosted by Hinshaw and the New York State Collectors Association (NYSCA).

New York-based partner Connie Montoya will co-host the National Filipino American Lawyers Association's (NFALA) event "Live in New York: NFALA-ganza" on June 21, 2025, at the historic Stonewall Inn in New York City.

Hinshaw partner Concepcion (Connie) Montoya will participate on a panel titled "Disrupting Bias and Handling Microaggressions: A Queer & Asian-American Legal Perspective" at the 2023 Annual Lavender Law Conference & Career Fair on July 25, 2023, in Chicago, Illinois. The panel is presented by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) LGBTQ+ Network, and panelists will share their legal and lived experiences to inform the LGBTQ+ legal community on the following issues:

New York-based partner Connie Montoya will present as part of a "Power Panel with Pinay Trial Lawyers" webinar, an event organized by the National Filipino American Lawyers Association (NFALA) Women's Committee and the Pinay Powerhouse Collective. The panel, scheduled for April 20, will discuss how gender bias impacts women litigators, and provide practical advice on how women can navigate these challenges to succeed in their careers.

A previously enacted amendment to the New York Civil Rights Law, effective May 7, 2022, requires employers to provide written or electronic notice to newly hired employees if the employer intends to monitor or intercept telephone conversations, email, or internet access or usage. The amendment also requires employers to obtain an employee's written or electronic acknowledgment before monitoring them. In addition, the employer must post notice of the electronic monitoring in a "conspicuous place," which is readily accessible to the employees who are subject to electronic monitoring to view.

In an effort to align its legislation with the broader standards of the New York City Human Rights Law, New York State recently passed an amended anti-harassment bill which will significantly impact how employers handle harassment claims. Governor Cuomo signed the bill on August 12, 2019. Many of the new provisions, if not already in effect, will be effective within sixty days. All employers will be subjected to the new amendments, regardless of the number of employees.

In a move directed at addressing inequities in pay and preventing pay discrimination, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) decision to stay the collection of pay data by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Unclear from the Court's decision, however, is when the EEOC will begin implementation of the pay data collection. For employers subject to this requirement, organizing pay records and information will only help streamline their reporting process once it gets underway.

The District of New Jersey, in Benali v. AFNI, granted summary judgment to creditor on Spokeo grounds, denied consumer’s motion for summary judgment and denied consumer’s class certification as moot in a claim involving a convenience fee in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Focusing on consumer’s admission that he never owed the underlying debt and lacked contractual privity with the creditor, the court held that the consumer did not suffer a concrete harm sufficient to confer Article III standing.  Specifically, the court noted that mere receipt of a collection letter in these circumstances “is just another way of saying that a bare procedural violation is itself a concrete harm – a principle explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court.” Benali, No. 15-3605, *6. As courts continue to grapple with the meaning of Spokeo in cases alleging statutory violations, Benali adds another measure of clarity for the creditor defense bar.

CFPB Taking Consumer Debt Collection Complaints 

Updated on April 10, 2020 to reflect a new Department of Treasury FAQThe Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law on March 27, 2020. It is the largest stimulus package in U.S. history, and provides $2.2 trillion in relief to individuals, businesses, and hospitals grappling with the rapidly developing and devastating economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. At its core, the CARES Act provides a critical injection of financial assistance to businesses, as well as expanded protections for workers. Below we have summarized what employers need to know about this important legislation. Note that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is expected to publish additional guidance in the coming days on the implementation of the programs set forth in the CARES Act and related issues.

While the United State Supreme Court's recent decisions in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis and Janus v. AFSCME tilt on the side of employers, New York's recent employment laws further protect the rights of employees. Beginning in 2017 and continuing through this year, New York has adopted new laws and revised existing ones to expand employee protections and benefits. With the increasing vigilance of state and local agencies to enforce compliance, employers need to review their existing policies and procedures to avoid investigations and penalties. Summarized below is some of the key legislation that New York employers need to be aware of.

No “Cat’s Paw” Claim Where Supervisor Was Terminated for Violating Policy A supervisor helped an injured employee obtain from the company nurse a work restriction that limited the number of hours the employee could work. However, the supervisor required the employee to work more hours than the restriction allowed. The supervisor alleged that at an intermediate-supervisor’s direction he denied the employee the breaks that the employee was entitled to. The employer discovered that the supervisor had failed to honor the injured employee’s restriction and terminated the supervisor. The supervisor in turn sued under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, claiming that he was retaliated against for seeking accommodation for the disabled subordinate employee. Using the “cat’s paw” theory, the supervisor argued that the intermediate-supervisor, who lacked decision-making power, used a manager as a dupe in a deliberate scheme to get the manager to fire him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected the employee’s claim because the intermediate-supervisor neither reported the supervisor’s violation of the work restriction to the manager nor recommended that the supervisor be disciplined. Nor did the manager rely on anything from the intermediate-supervisor in deciding to fire the supervisor. Instead, the manager fired the supervisor because he had admitted violating company policy by forcing the employee to work in violation of his restriction. This case is significant because of the Court’s recognition that the supervisor was required but failed to prove that the manager’s decision was actually influenced by the intermediate-supervisor. Employers must ensure that decision-makers do not make employment decisions based on their own desire, or the desire of a subordinate, to retaliate against an employee for engaging in any kind of protected activity. Diaz v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., Case No. 10-1472 (8th Cir. Jun. 28, 2011)For more information, please contact your regular Hinshaw attorney.

Lee v. Kucker & Bruh, LLP, Docket No. 12-cv-04662(LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2013)

Hinshaw’s Labor & Employment newsletter has two stories this month with a nexus to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions which are favorable to employers. Our first story reviews recent efforts by the New York legislature and the City of New York to expand employee protections in response to these decisions. Our second story reviews the potential impact of the recent Epic Systems decision on California employers and a California employment protection law.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Claim Based on Attorney's Failure to Know Truth of Information in Sworn Affidavit

Eighth Circuit Holds that Debt Collector's Debt Verification with Credit Reporting Agency Was not Misleading and Was not a Communication "in Connection with the Collection of any Debt"