Blog(Dev) - Page 29 of 74 - Sidkoff, Pincus & Green

Merck Sued Over Rescinded Job Offer

By anthony, 25th September 2019

Pharmaceutical giant, Merck, is being sued by a woman who was in the process of being hired by the company. She was given employment information and was offered a job over the phone by a Merck recruiter. After receiving the offer of employment in the mail, she quit her job at Crown Bioscience and made a down payment for a townhouse that was closer to Merck. The offer was later rescinded by Merck because the woman’s temporary visa expires in 2020, which means the company would have to sponsor her during the application process. Although her contract litigation claim of promissory estoppel and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Merck were dismissed, the court granted her leave to amend the negligent misrepresentation complaint.

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter dismissed the plaintiff’s claim of promissory estoppel on the grounds that at-will employees may not sue for promissory estoppel under Pennsylvania law. The promise of employment was contingent, so it was not actionable for promissory estoppel purposes. The court determined that the claim would have been dismissed, even if the promissory claim was allowed for at-will employment.

Court Allows Plaintiff to Proceed with Misrepresentation Claim

The court disagreed with Merck’s argument that the economic loss doctrine prevents recovery for damages, so the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint. According to the court, it was clear that Merck and the plaintiff were in the process of establishing an employer/employee relationship. The plaintiff was given employment information, which implied a job offer. Companies are aware of the fact that prospective employees use the information provided to decide whether or not to accept the position.

The plaintiff claimed that she assured the Merck recruiter that the company would not have to sponsor her because she was in the United States on a work visa, but the visa expires in May 2020. The employment offer was contingent on proof of identity and eligibility to work in the U.S. She would be required to complete an I-9 form and provide the necessary documentation. After quitting her job at Bioscience, Merck rescinded the offer on the grounds that they would be required to sponsor her in the future.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Employment Contract Disputes

If you believe that your legal rights were violated in an employment dispute, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we assist clients across South Jersey and Pennsylvania.

PA Court Rules in Favor of Employer in Whistleblower Retaliation Case

By anthony, 18th September 2019

A former employee of GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) alleged that he was wrongfully terminated from his job in retaliation for reporting concerns about potential security threats related to the company’s manufacturing and financial servers. The plaintiff filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the company shortly after he was discharged. GSK responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX Act”) whistleblower retaliation claim. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion for summary judgment due to a lack of evidence to support the claim that the company violated any SEC regulations.

Highlights of the Case

The plaintiff had been with the company for 16 years prior to his termination. He was part of the team responsible for the AS/400 computer operating system. In 2011, he noticed that a co-worker had started using uncapped processors, which impacted the way the processors performed. GSK consumers began complaining about the overall performance of the processors after the uncapped systems were enabled. The plaintiff confronted the colleague, and notified his supervisor, as well as the vice president of enterprise systems and technologies. After he did not get the response he was hoping for, he notified the Global Compliance Office about the issue. Ultimately, he filed a complaint with the CEO of GSK. The plaintiff alleged that the company’s 2013 report to the SEC failed to mention any of the performance or security concerns that had been raised. After an internal investigation, GSK found that the plaintiff’s complaints were unsubstantiated.

In early 2014, GSK announced that only two of the AS/400 positions would remain in-house and that the rest would be outsourced. The plaintiff was encouraged to apply for one of those positions, but he chose not to because the language in the memo he received led him to believe that his employment would depend on the outcome of the investigation. After a number of postponed termination dates, he was told on April 8, 2015 that his position was being eliminated and that his last day of employment would be June 30, 2015.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that GSK disclosed the risks associated with the computer system’s poor performance. The company’s report also noted that the failure to protect important information and sensitive systems could have a negative impact on the company’s financial results. As a result, the court held that anyone with the training and experience that the plaintiff had could not believe that the defendant was in violation of the SOX Act.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for the Rights of Whistleblowers

If you were wrongfully terminated in retaliation for an employment dispute, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Supreme Court to Decide on Racial Bias Lawsuit Against Comcast

By anthony, 11th September 2019

Byron Allen, owner of Entertainment Studios Network (ESN)—an African American-owned media company—filed a discrimination lawsuit against Comcast, alleging that the telecommunications giant refused to carry any of the network’s channels due to racially discriminatory practices. A federal court initially dismissed the claims. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the lawsuit legitimate after Allen appealed the initial decision. Comcast appealed the decision, which ultimately brought the case to the Supreme Court.

According to Allen, Comcast had assured him that his channels were being considered for carriage, and that they were on the “short list” for new channels. However, rather than follow through with that assurance, Comcast moved forward with over 80 lesser-known channels, all of which were owned by caucasians. Comcast characterized the claims as “outlandish” and that the decision to launch the other channels had nothing to do with race.

The key issue that the Supreme Court will be considering is whether there is enough evidence of racial discrimination to allow the lawsuit to proceed. Allen claims that Comcast is in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, which guarantees racial equality in a number of domains, including business. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco opined that ESN only had to prove that discrimination was a motivating factor in Comcast’s decision regarding ESN programming. However, Comcast argued that Congress allowed “motivating factor” discrimination claims under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but purposely did not include a similar provision to Section 1981. ESN countered by arguing that Congress added the provision to Title VII to protect discrimination victims, and that this should not mean Congress planned to limit civil rights claims under Section 1981.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients Alleging Discriminatory Business Practices

If you have questions about what you suspect is racially discriminatory conduct, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Our skilled legal team will thoroughly review your case and determine whether your civil rights have been violated. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients from South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Supreme Court Ruling Calls for Paid Sick Leave for Workers in Pittsburgh

By anthony, 5th September 2019

For some workers, having to take a sick day means not getting paid. That may simply not be an option for those hard-working employees who are struggling to make ends meet. Instead, they come into work, and run the risk of getting sicker and spreading germs to other employees. Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Pittsburgh must offer guaranteed paid sick leave to workers. While some small businesses and restaurant associations have sued and won in the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that the paid sick leave ordinance gives the city authority to further the cause of disease control and prevention.

Paid Sick Leave Ordinance

In a 4-3 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Pittsburgh’s 2015 ordinance was allowed to stand. The decision will impact the roughly 50,000 lower-income workers who did not have access to paid sick leave. According to the ordinance, employers with 15 or more employees must provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave per year. Employers with up to 14 employees must provide up to 24 hours of paid sick leave per year. It is unclear exactly when this will take effect.

Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto said that the decision will have a significant impact on the men and women who live and work in the city. He went on to say that no worker should be forced to decide between staying home sick and losing a day’s pay or coming to work and risk getting others sick. Prior to the ruling, the home rule charter law did not require Pittsburgh employers to offer paid sick leave. The law states that municipalities should not be responsible for requirements placed on employers or businesses. However, the Supreme court overturned this decision.

Those opposed to the ruling argue that decision is going to be particularly hard on small businesses. However, advocates of paid sick leave argue that, in addition to offering improved benefits to employees, it helps prevent the spread of illness, reduces the cost of healthcare, and ensures that parents will be able to care for sick children or other family members.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Advocate for Workers’ Rights

If you have a wage and hour dispute, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

District Court Judge Orders Status Reports on Arbitration Proceedings Between Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Former Employee

By anthony, 28th August 2019

In 2000, Ritz-Carlton hired the plaintiff as a hotel manager, at which time he received the standard training that all new hires receive. After completing the training, he initially worked as a PBX manager until the position was eliminated. He was then transferred to the accounting department, and eventually became a Banquet Captain, a position which he held for nine years. After he began receiving complaints about his job performance, he was terminated in 2013 at the age of 53. The plaintiff alleged that Ritz-Carlton purposefully wanted to get rid of older workers, and that he was fired because of his age. Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald J. Pappert suspended the case in August of 2018 pending an arbitration session. In April, Judge Pappert ordered both parties to provide regular status updates on the progress of the arbitration proceedings.

Part of Ritz-Carlton’s training involves providing new hires with an Employee Agreement, which the plaintiff and the Assistant Director of Human Resources signed. The Employee Agreement describes the hotel’s three-stage procedure for resolving conflicts in the workplace. The first stage involves attempting to resolve the issue with the worker’s immediate supervisor, division head, or general manager. If a resolution cannot be reached, the employee proceeds to stage two, which involves seeking help through a Peer Review Panel. If a resolution still cannot be reached, the employee moves to stage three which is arbitration. The plaintiff completed this three-stage procedure.

However, instead of proceeding to arbitration, the plaintiff filed a complaint in August of 2017, and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed on the grounds that he agreed to arbitrate the age discrimination claim. The motion was granted and the Court compelled arbitration, while staying the case in the meantime. Judge Pappert cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit precedent in Great W. Mortg. Corp. v. Peacock, saying that any doubts about what issues should be heard in arbitration should be resolved through arbitration.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Seek Justice for Clients in Wrongful Termination Disputes

If you were wrongfully terminated from your job, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. at your earliest convenience. We will review the details of your case and determine whether your legal rights have been violated. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we assist clients across New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia Passes Ordinance that Protects Parking Employees Wrongfully Discharged

By anthony, 21st August 2019

Parking lot attendants are generally low-paid positions, with little to no healthcare benefits. In Philadelphia, employers operating parking lots or garages could discharge an employee without demonstrating just cause. Therefore, attendants had no legal recourse if they were fired from their job. However, on June 5, 2019, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney signed a bill that would prohibit parking lot or garage employers from discharging an employee unless he or she is able to demonstrate just cause or a “bona fide economic reason.” This new ordinance—which will impact approximately 1,000 employees—provides low-wage workers with union-like protections.

The “Wrongful Discharge from Parking Employment” ordinance will be included in the Philadelphia Code. Effective September 3, 2019, employers will need to demonstrate just cause to terminate an employee. According to the law, the employer will be required to implement progressive discipline before discharge and may not refer to disciplinary action from more than one year ago. However, the ordinance does allow employers to terminate workers in reverse order of seniority for financial reasons, but employers must provide business records that provide proof of a reduction of revenue or profit. In addition, if a worker is discharged, the employer must provide a written explanation as to the reason for the termination. The ordinance also states that employers may not retaliate against an employee who is simply exercising his or her new legal rights.

Enforcement of the New Law

The Mayor’s Office of Labor will be responsible for enforcing the ordinance and investigating specific cases. In addition to the new protections the ordinance offers parking attendants, it also allows discharged workers and the Philadelphia City Solicitor to file a civil lawsuit against an employer if he or she violated the law in any way. If a terminated employee files a discharge claim, and the case is successful, the employee will be eligible for attorneys’ fees, liquidated damages up to $2,000, and reinstatement, as well as the usual damages associated with a discharge claim. All employers who operate a parking lot, parking garage, or valet service in the city of Philadelphia are strongly urged to thoroughly review their policies and ensure that they are in compliance with the new ordinance.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Represent Employees Who Have Been Wrongfully Discharged

If you were terminated from your job without just cause, it is in your best interest to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. as soon as possible. We will conduct a thorough investigation of your case, including the events leading up to your termination, and determine whether your employer violated employment laws. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients from South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Lanham Act’s Ban on Immoral Trademarks is a Violation of the First Amendment, Superior Court Rules

By anthony, 16th August 2019

In the case of Ianco v. Brunetti, the clothing line, FUCT, was denied a trademark for its use of the F-word, even though it is spelled differently. The founder of the clothing company, Erik Brunetti, wanted to trademark FUCT, which stands for “Friends U Can’t Trust,” but the application was denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because the brand name was considered vulgar. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the clothing brand and found that the Lanham Act’s ban on scandalous trademarks is a violation of the First Amendment.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, which stated that the law violated the First Amendment rights of artist Erik Brunetti. The Justice Department tried to limit the meaning of “scandalous” to only cover names that are sexually explicit, but Kagan said that the Lanham Act covers all scandalous and immoral ideas. Therefore, denying the trademark for Brunetti’s clothing brand violates the First Amendment. Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh endorsed the opinion.

According to Justice Kagan, the Lanham Act’s ban on immoral trademarks favors ideas that are socially acceptable and rejects those that provoke offense and condemnation. For example, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected a trademark for “You can’t spell healthcare without the THC,” which was a suggested tagline for a pain-relief medication. However, it approved a trademark for “Say no to drugs – reality is the trip in life.” It also rejected a trademark for “Madonna” for a wine label but approved “Jesus died for you” on t-shirts and other clothing items.

In a separate concurrence written by Justice Alito, he wrote that it is crucial that the court stand firm on the principle that the First Amendment will not tolerate viewpoint discrimination, particularly at a time when free speech is under attack. He went on to say that the Court’s decision does not prevent Congress from passing statutes that ban registration of trademarks that may contain “vulgar terms that play no real part in the expression of ideas.”

In dissents written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen G. Breyer, the justices said that the ban on scandalous trademarks did not violate the First Amendment when only addressing obscenity, vulgarity and profanity. Sotomayor said that the decision will limit the government’s power to refuse trademarks that contain extremely vulgar and obscene words.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with Trademark Issues

If your trademark application was denied, or your First Amendment rights have been violated, contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Our skilled legal team will review the details of your case and ensure that your rights are protected as we work to resolve your trademark dispute. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we represent clients across Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Judge Denies Philadelphia Man’s Lawsuit Against Domino’s Over Racial Slur

By anthony, 15th August 2019

A Philadelphia resident filed a lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza after a Domino’s employee allegedly directed a racial slur at him during a confrontation in July of 2017. The customer had complained that he received a pizza via delivery that was burnt. He drove to the restaurant to return the pizza and request a refund. The situation became heated after the customer took a picture of the employee, who refused to give the customer his refund unless he agreed to delete the photo. The employee claimed that having her picture taken was against her religion. As the argument escalated, the Domino’s employee allegedly directed an offensive racial slur at the customer. A Pennsylvania Superior Court judge ruled that, while offensive, a racial slur is not enough to warrant a lawsuit.

Ruling Based on 1985 Precedent

The initial lawsuit claimed that Domino’s was negligent in the way it hired, trained, and supervised its employees. The customer claimed that the racial slur directed at him caused emotional distress. Due to a precedent that was established in 1985 in the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which ruled that an individual can only be held liable for emotional distress if the individual’s conduct is extreme and outrageous, the initial lawsuit was dismissed.

The precedent is based on an incident involving an altercation between a department store employee and a shopper, where the employee reportedly directed the n-word at the shopper. The ruling states that an individual cannot be held liable for mere insults, threats, and other indignities or trivialities. Until legal and societal changes occur, plaintiffs must be expected to accept a certain degree of offensive, inconsiderate, or unkind acts. The law cannot intervene every time someone’s feelings are hurt.

The Domino’s customer appealed after the initial lawsuit was dismissed, claiming that the 1985 ruling was outdated. While the Pennsylvania Superior Court made it clear that it does not condone such offensive and derogatory language, the appeal was denied.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers at The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle a Range of Legal Matters

If you suffered emotional distress, financial harm, or were injured in any way as a result of racial discrimination in the workplace, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business litigation lawyers at The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Department of Labor Conducts Investigation, Finds Many Employers in Violation of FLSA

By anthony, 14th August 2019

The Department of Labor recently conducted multiple investigations throughout the country, identifying multiple violators of various aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA sets guidelines as to who is protected, and dictates that certain employees must receive 1.5x their hourly rate for any weekly hours worked in excess of 40. The Department of Labor penalized various employers who improperly compensated their employees for mistakes such as incorrectly rounding an hourly wage rate, or playing flat daily rates.

One of the investigations ordered Lowndes Advocacy Resource Center Inc. (LARC) of Georgia to pay $157,473 back to 130 of its employees, because it did not meet the requirements of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which allows employers, after obtaining a certificate, to pay a minimum wage less than the Federal minimum to disabled employees. LARC incorrectly rounded the employees’ wage rates, deducted their break time from their daily hours, and did not count travel time as work time, resulting in their gross underpayment.

Similarly, ASAP Courier & Logistics LLC, was ordered to pay 160 of its employees $64,027 in back wages based on underpayment of its delivery drivers. The Florida based company paid its drivers flat daily rates without regard to how many hours they worked, severely reducing the amount of overtime that they should have been paid. Paying flat daily rates is not illegal; however, any hours worked in excess of 40 must be compensated by 1.5x the employee’s hourly rate. Similar to ASAP, Chattanooga Restaurant Group LLC had to pay its employees $153,740 for failing to accurately track their hours, significantly reducing the amount of overtime to which the employees were entitled.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers for Fair Labor Standards Act in Philadelphia and South Jersey at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Time Warner Cable Employee Receives $334,500 in Damages after Proving Pretext for Age Discrimination

By anthony, 7th August 2019

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding in favor of a terminated Time Warner Cable employee (Time Warner) who was subjected to age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Westmoreland v. TWC Administration LLC , 924 F.3d 718 (4th Cir. 2019). The jury awarded the employee $334,500 in damages.

The legal standard for establishing age discrimination under the ADEA is known as the McDonnell Douglas framework. The framework consists of a three-part test where the court engages in a burden-shifting analysis in order to determine whether an employee was fired because of his or her age. First, the burden is on plaintiff/employee to establish a prima facie case. Second, the burden shifts to defendant/company to give a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Third, the burden is back on plaintiff/employee to prove that the reasons provided in part two are not true reasons for termination; rather, they were pretext for age discrimination.

Here, the dispute between the employee and Time Warner centered on the third part of the test, pretext. Time Warner stated that they fired the employee due to “trust and integrity issues” which resulted from the employee telling a subordinate to edit the date on a form. However, after the violation, the employee was told that it was a minor violation and that she would simply receive a “slap on the wrist”. Time Warner provided no other reasoning for why it fired the employee.

The Fourth Circuit held that the employee provided enough evidence of pretext where she showed that she was fired after 30 years of work with a satisfactory record, that her supervisor made a condescending, age-related remark after firing her, and where the violation that supposedly led to her termination was considered minor. The jury award of $334,500 was upheld because Time Warner could not provide a legitimate reason for the employee’s termination.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Age Discrimination Cases

If you or someone you know has been discriminated against at work because of your age, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Newer
1
…
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
…
74
Older

1101 Market Street Suite 2700, Philadelphia, PA 19107