How Can I Prevent Workplace Discrimination?

By ,

discrimination

Most employers understand that they have an obligation to provide their employees with a discrimination-free workplace. While the laws regarding discrimination may be complex, employers can readily implement important protections to avoid discriminatory practices and meet their obligations. The idea is to treat employees fairly and to provide them with unbiased access to employment and advancement.

It is in everyone’s best interests for workplaces to be free of discrimination. From the employee’s perspective, they can thrive if they are given equal opportunities to succeed at work, learn new skills, and compete for promotions. There is good reason for employers to be proactive in providing a discrimination-free workplace. Those with disabilities can contribute most effectively when provided with reasonable accommodations provided by employers. If a worker requires certain accommodations by an employer, the employer should comply.

Best practices have been developed over time and can be implemented in businesses of all sizes. In general, employment decisions, including hiring, firing, and promoting employees, should be based on objective criteria. Work assignments, access to training and education, and opportunities to compete for a promotion should be provided to employees without any particular group being singled out for differential treatment. This is important to remember during the hiring process. When hiring employees, employers should be sure to avoid using the following language:

  • Gender-specific titles and descriptions;
  • If a pre-employment screening test is to be used, make sure it is administered to all candidates;
  • When interviewing, avoid asking questions that seek information on a protected status, such as age, religion, or disability; and
  • Do not ask if a person is married, pregnant, or intends to start a family.

Workplace Policies Against Discrimination

Be proactive by establishing detailed protocols, including written criteria for hiring applicants and for firing and promoting employees. Write up protocols for how employee performance will be evaluated and follow these written protocols consistently.

Having a workplace handbook on the company’s policy against discrimination is a good idea. Work with an experienced employment lawyer when developing a handbook and training materials on maintaining a discrimination-free workplace. There are nuanced differences between federal and state laws, and both should be reflected in the handbook to be used as a reference for training employees on discrimination. Handbooks should also be frequently updated and reviewed.

Provide the handbook to each new hire and every employee. Many employers place anti-discrimination policy language into their general handbook that describes benefits, attendance requirements, and the like. Ask each employee to sign a form indicating they received the handbook. The handbook can be used to develop training for all managers and employees.

A policy against discrimination should also include a complaint processing component. State how employees are to lodge a complaint and explain how they will be handled, from investigation to disciplinary action. It is also very important that employers follow up with every complaint and be consistent with discipline. Federal law requires employers to post a notice explaining the federal laws prohibiting job discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, age, equal pay, disability, or genetic information.

How Can Employers Effectively Communicate with Their Employees?

Communication between employers and employees should be consistent and non-accusatory when matters of discrimination are discussed. Creating a strong employer-employee relationship is very important to prevent discrimination. If an employee does not feel comfortable with their employer, they may not follow guidelines or report any suspected discrimination.

Feedback is vital to establish an anti-discrimination environment at work. Employers should regularly ask how they can improve their anti-discrimination policies, according to federal and local laws, and if employees are experiencing any wrongdoings, such as discrimination or even sexual harassment. When employers openly communicate with employees, it reassures workers that their best interests are being protected.

During conversations, employers should be mindful about their language. If an employer suspects a worker is being discriminatory, they should not start a conversation by accusing them. Employers must take complaints seriously and evidence of discrimination should be provided. Also, disciplinary action must always be incorporated if a worker is being biased, discriminatory, or is harassing other workers. Reports and disciplinary actions must be reported to the company’s Human Resources department.

When Should an Employee Hire a Lawyer?

If an employee feels that their concerns are not being heard, even after discussing discrimination with their employer, they may consider filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), an organization that enforces anti-discrimination policies and makes certain that employers are accountable for their negligent actions.

When an employee wishes to file a complaint, they must notify their employer of the complaint. A Charge of Discrimination will be filed, then the EEOC will interview the employee about their complaint. It is important that employees be thorough with their story and provide evidence of discrimination, such as emails or other forms of written conversations. The EEOC will investigate the employer and determine the next course of action. Complaints should be filed within 180 days.

During this process, it is also extremely beneficial to hire a lawyer. Filing a complaint can be difficult, especially because these matters are often sensitive. An employment lawyer will correctly file a complaint with the EEOC. A lawyer will also construct a case against an employer based on evidence that is provided by the employee. An employment lawyer will know the process and steps to complete when discrimination occurs. They will also be knowledgeable about deadlines and what to do if a case is denied. Additionally, by hiring an employment lawyer, an employer will take the discrimination complaint seriously.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Those Suffering from Workplace Discrimination

If you were discriminated against in the workplace, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can help. We will review your case and fight for the justice you deserve. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania. For an initial consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or complete an online form today.

How Should Companies Terminate Remote Employees During a Pandemic?

By ,

termination letter

Before the arrival of COVID-19, more than 50 percent of employees in the United States had a job that could have been done remotely, yet less than four percent of them primarily worked from home, according to Global Workplace Analytics. Faced with lockdown mandates in March 2020, all types of businesses ordered employees to work remotely.

As a consequence, managers must now navigate the process of having to fire or lay off employees who are working from home. There are additional legal considerations when termination is not handled in person. Learning best practices for terminating remote employees during a pandemic can help employers avoid legal pitfalls and manage the process more smoothly.

General Legal Considerations

Firing or laying off a worker signals the termination of the employer-employee relationship. Whether or not the employee had a written employee contract, the employer should always document the separation with a written termination letter, prepared in advance. Wording is important, as it could be used as evidence in litigation should the termination be contested.

Although employment is generally considered at-will, employers must ensure that they are not violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or any other state or federal laws against discrimination when terminating a worker. Other legal matters to consider include the following:

  • Personnel file. Review documentation of all conduct and any attempts at remediation.
  • Determine what compensation is owed to the employee and whether they will be eligible for unemployment benefits.
  • Incidents that may suggest retaliation. If the employee filed a Workers’ Compensation claim or complained about questionable company practices, they may have grounds for claiming the termination is an act of retaliation.

Employers must take time to weigh these factors before termination. When in doubt, the company should consult an employment lawyer before firing or laying off an employee.

Special Considerations for Terminating Remote Employees

Terminating a remote employee requires additional planning, as the following questions will need to be addressed:

  • How will access to remote equipment and online accounts be removed? It is critical to coordinate closely with the IT department to schedule the exact time for removing a terminated employee’s online access to email and other licensed software, and to collect hardware if needed.
  • Who will communicate the decision? The employee’s direct supervisor is usually the best spokesperson to communicate the termination in person, along with a representative from human resources (HR). However, sending a Zoom meeting invitation that includes HR may give the employee advanced warning, which may undermine secure removal of access to company online resources.
  • How will the decision be communicated to other remote colleagues? Direct managers should deliver the news to their team members. It is best to keep others on mute during a group Zoom meeting.
  • How should the hardcopy termination letter be delivered? The termination letter should be sent overnight, requiring signature on delivery, to arrive the day after the news is verbally communicated to the employee via virtual means.

Managers are less able to get a true sense of the person’s reaction to termination when it happens remotely. For this reason, organizations may want to monitor public comments made by former employees after remote termination in case there is a need to respond to negative publicity.

Will Businesses Continue to Use More Remote Workers?

Global Workplace Analytics predicts that at least 25 percent of U.S workers will still be doing their jobs remotely by the end of 2021. Reasons for this change include the following:

  • Since the pandemic, managers and executives have learned to trust that remote workers are actually doing their jobs at home.
  • Cost savings. Businesses are reducing overhead by allowing employees to work from home.
  • Climate benefits. Many people noticed a reduction in traffic and air pollution in April 2020, marking another shift in an increasing awareness that working from home supports sustainability of the planet.

With a greater percentage of employees working from home, the act of terminating employees remotely instead of in-person is likely to become more commonplace. Preparing for this change can make the transition easier.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Offer Clear Guidance on Complex Legal Issues

Terminating employees who work remotely adds another layer of complexity to managing a workforce. Although planning ahead can help managers avoid most legal risks, questions may still arise. If you are facing a complex legal matter, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are available to review your situation and provide sound guidance to help you make better business decisions. Do not hesitate to contact us online or call 215-574-0600 to arrange an initial consultation. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Discrimination
  Comments: Comments Off on How Should Companies Terminate Remote Employees During a Pandemic?
  Other posts by

Are Rideshare Drivers Eligible for Unemployment?

By ,

navigation

On July 24th, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a rideshare driver was legally entitled to unemployment benefits, even though he was previously disqualified because he was considered self-employed. In a groundbreaking opinion, the Court held that because Uber controlled and directed the performance and services of a driver-for-hire, he was not establishing an independent business and therefore could not be considered self-employed. This case marks one of the few instances in which a higher court has closely examined the employer-employee relationship between a rideshare driver and the rideshare company.

Facts in the Case

Donald Lowman lost his job as a behavioral health specialist during the summer of 2015. While his application for unemployment compensation was pending, he signed a services agreement with Uber. He began using Uber on July 1, 2015, and thereafter earned between $15 and $22 per hour, bringing in approximately $350 per week. As required by Pennsylvania’s unemployment laws, he reported his earnings to the Unemployment Compensation Service Center. On August 17, 2015, the service center issued a Notice of Determination finding that Lowman’s driving rendered him ineligible for continued benefits because he was considered self-employed.

Lowman appealed the decision and was again denied benefits. He subsequently filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court in 2016. The Court reversed the previous decision, concluding that Lowman was not self-employed. The case moved on, eventually reaching the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which issued the final ruling.

The Court Examines the Definition of Self-Employment

An amendment added to Pennsylvania’s unemployment laws in 1959 states that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week in which he is engaged in self-employment. In Lowman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the Court closely scrutinized the relationship that Uber had with its drivers to determine whether they were independent contractors. The wording of the opinion focused on the issue of control. Although Mr. Lowman used his own car and cellphone, and was responsible for his own maintenance, the Court found that he did not have control over his work for the following reasons:

  • Uber established the rates that drivers charged
  • Uber tracked the movements of its drivers using GPS technology
  • Uber closely monitored the work of its drivers

In essence, Uber controls its drivers much like a manager exerts control over employees in an office.

Partial Victory for Gig Workers

The Court’s ruling set the stage for further advancement for the rights of gig workers in Pennsylvania. Although it does not automatically make them eligible for unemployment, it does open the door for appeals if they are denied benefits. The ruling did not address larger issues, such as whether Uber drivers should be classified as full-fledged employees entitled to health insurance, Workers’ Compensation, minimum wage, overtime, and paid sick leave. However, this decision marks a turning point when viewed in context with other legal decisions, such as California’s recent law that made it more difficult for rideshare companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Continually Monitor Legal Cases Addressing Employer-Employee Relationships

Terminated workers who attempt to make ends meet by driving for rideshare companies may not know that this could disqualify them for unemployment benefits. The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. continually monitor the evolving legal landscape of employment law to provide skilled counsel to workers and businesses. If you have an employment question, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Recent Study Reveals Extent of Sexual Harassment in Workplace Culture

By ,

Sexual Harassment Complaint Form

A recent survey of 2,120 legal professionals indicated that sexual harassment continues to be a serious problem in the workplace. The study, released by Women Lawyers on Guard, was reviewed in a July 2020 article published in the ABA Journal. The study focused on the effects of sexual harassment, as well as how sexual harassment in the workplace has evolved during the past 30 years. The study concluded that sexual harassment is deeply embedded in workplace culture, and only by changing that culture can progress be achieved.

Survey respondents were asked to characterize sexual harassment incidents in the workplace they experienced in the past 30 years. During that time, the study found a decrease in the percentage of sexual assaults and incidents of threats or bribes in exchange for sexual favors. However, incidents of sexually offensive jokes, sexualized name-calling, and rating women have increased. More than one-third of the incidents today occur in off-site business meetings or at the office, and about one in four occur in private.

Effects of Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment continues to have negative effects on victims and the workplace environment overall. More than 60 percent of survey respondents reported experiencing anxiety about their careers or workplaces due to sexual harassment. More than one-third believed that the incidents caused a loss in their productivity, and more than one-fourth reported having a negative impact on their careers. Fear of retaliation for reporting sexual harassment was widespread, with 40 percent of respondents replying that this was a concern.

Putting a Stop to Sexual Harassment

It has been more than 55 years since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex. Since that time, most corporations have instituted policies against sexual harassment, requiring employees to attend training courses explaining those policies. Yet, the problem still exists. The Woman Lawyers on Guard study points to several reasons why existing approaches are not working, including the following:

  • Sexual harassment is treated as a compliance issue rather than a workplace culture issue;
  • Sexual harassment is about power; and
  • Unequal power dynamics in corporate structures foster a workplace culture of sexual harassment.

The study suggests that addressing the underlying power imbalance at work must happen first to combat the problem of sexual harassment. Change starts at the top because workplace culture is shaped by the worst behavior the CEO is willing to tolerate, according to the study.

What Steps Can Organizations Take?

The following are steps organizations can take to begin identifying and addressing cultural issues that allow harassment to continue:

  • Gather baseline data about the workplace. This includes identifying the demographics of those in power and surveying employees using a confidential, anonymous reporting tools.
  • Offer meaningful training. Instead of just showing a video once a year, organizations may consider holding group sessions on topics, such as how bystanders can intervene and stop inappropriate behavior.
  • Consider a no-tolerance policy. Rather than let high-performing employees continually get away with inappropriate behavior, organizations should make it clear that all employees must be respectful no matter how much revenue they bring in.

Any type of sexual harassment in the workplace is counterproductive, whether it meets the legal definition of discrimination or creates a hostile work environment. Changing workplace culture is a long process but a necessary one if companies are to move toward positive change.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Respond to Legal Challenges with Experience and Skill

Sexual harassment in the workplace can damage individual productivity and derail careers. The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are familiar with complex legal challenges in cases involving sexual harassment and discrimination. We approach these matters with skill and experience. If you have questions or concerns about sexual harassment in the workplace, discrimination, or any other matter of employment law, call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out our online form. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

What Should Employers Know About Hiring Seasonal Workers?

By ,

Employee Handbook

Many employers rely on seasonal labor to meet fluctuations in business activity. In the summer, industry sectors hiring seasonal workers include hospitality, landscaping, agriculture, travel, and recreation. Employers with seasonal workers can help ensure legal compliance by understanding the ways in which the temporary nature of seasonal employment impacts the employer-employee relationship.

How Does the Employer-Employee Relationship Change?

When a business hires an individual for seasonal work, the expectations of both employer and employee change in several ways. First and foremost, the employer approaches the employment agreement with the understanding that the demand for work is temporary. Whether it is a 12-week summer camp or a field of crops to be harvested, when the work or time period is complete, the seasonal worker will be terminated.

Aspects of traditional permanent employment, including promotions, raises, and building a career path are typically not part of the expectations of employers or employees. Ideally, the seasonal employee understands this as well. Employers should be clear when explaining to workers the nature of their work and when they can expect it to end. Setting false expectations regarding raises or permanent positions can lead to problems.

What Employer Responsibilities Remain the Same Regarding Seasonal Workers?

Most employment laws that protect the rights of permanent employees also apply to seasonal workers. The following employer responsibilities remain the same regarding seasonal workers:

  • Providing a safe workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) requires employers to provide hazard-free workplaces that are free of known dangers that could harm their employees.
  • Classifying workers appropriately. Employers may be tempted to misclassify temporary workers as independent contractors to avoid paying payroll taxes; doing so may violate standards set by the Internal Revenue Service.
  • Paying overtime. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must pay time-and-a-half for any hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek.
  • Protecting workers from discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as well as state laws in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also protects workers with disabilities.
  • Providing health care. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employers to provide health care benefits to employees working more than 30 hours per week for more than 120 days.

There are certain exceptions for agriculture and family-owned businesses. The Department of Labor offers guidance to employers of seasonal workers regarding overtime pay, meal breaks, youth employment, and hazardous occupations.

Special Considerations for Agricultural Workers During the Pandemic

The spread of COVID-19 raises additional concerns for employers of seasonal farm labor. To help protect the health of agricultural workers, the state of New Jersey issued the following guidelines:

  • Workplace and housing safety: Workers must wear employer-provided face masks at all times in the presence of others.
  • Social distancing during work time:Employers need to promote social distancing and offer staggered shifts.
  • Sanitation:Employers are to disinfect high-touch areas.

Additionally, employers must screen workers for COVID-19 symptoms prior to work shifts. Workers exhibiting symptoms must be separated from other workers and be seen by a physician.

Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are Employment Attorneys in Philadelphia That Offer Experienced Counsel Regarding Employment Issues

The relationship between employers and employees is subject to a myriad of state and federal laws. Seasonal workers are covered by most of these laws, even though they are temporary employees. Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are employment attorneys in Philadelphia that help businesses and workers navigate the legal landscape of employment law. Contact us online or call us at 215-574-0600 for an initial consultation today. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Discrimination
  Comments: Comments Off on What Should Employers Know About Hiring Seasonal Workers?
  Other posts by

How has COVID-19 Affected Employee Rights?

By ,

OSHA

There are numerous federal and state laws guaranteeing the rights of employees with respect to discrimination, privacy of medical records, and safety in the workplace. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), have issued guidelines affecting these rights. Employees may have many questions regarding the implications of COVID-19 on their rights at work.

How has COVID-19 Impacted Rules on Unsafe Working Conditions?

OSHA regulations protect employees against discrimination if they refuse, in good faith, to expose themselves to dangerous conditions in the workplace.

However, employees who refuse to return to work for fear of contracting COVID-19 are not eligible for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES”). For example, this may include employees of retail stores or restaurants who must interact with the public. In addition to contracting the virus, some employees at retail stores have reported being assaulted by irate customers who refuse to comply with face mask requirements.

Are Employers Still Required to Make Reasonable Accommodations for Disabilities?

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities as long as it does not impose an undue hardship. However, given that many employers are experiencing decreased income, they may have grounds for demonstrating that accommodations provided in the past are now significantly expensive in relation to their current financial status, creating an undue hardship.

Can Employers Require Workers to Submit to Temperature Checks?

Under normal conditions, the ADA prohibits all disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, even if they are job-related. However, current EEOC guidelines allow employers to require workers to submit to testing to determine whether they currently have COVID-19. Furthermore, the EEOC stated that because the CDC and state/local health authorities acknowledged community spread of COVID-19 and issued attendant precautions, employers may measure employees’ body temperatures. If a worker is found to have COVID-19, the employer can make the worker stay home. The employer can also disclose the worker’s illness to public health agencies.

However, employers must maintain the confidentiality of temperature check records. Employers in general cannot ask employees about their health; however, the EEOC now states that employers may ask workers if they are experiencing fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, or sore throat, which are symptoms of COVID-19.

How are Hiring Decisions Affected by COVID-19 Exposure?

Under current CDC guidelines, employers have the right to deny employment to job applicants with active cases of COVID-19 because those persons cannot enter the workplace safely. However, the CDC also said that the use of COVID-19 antibody tests should not be used to make general employment decisions involving hiring or returning workers to a specific job. Persons with antibodies are presumed to have had COVID-19 in the past and may have a degree of immunity. However, if an employer requires a worker to take a COVID-19 test in order to return to work, that would be a violation of the ADA. 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Keep Pace with Evolving Federal, State and Local Guidelines to Deliver Outstanding Results

The legal protections afforded by employment laws are continually shaped by court rulings and guidance issued by federal, state, and local agencies. Employee rights in the workplace today are subject to change tomorrow. If you have questions about your rights in the workplace, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can help. Fill out our online form or call us at 215-574-0600 to arrange a confidential consultation. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Coronavirus
  Comments: Comments Off on How has COVID-19 Affected Employee Rights?
  Other posts by

U.S. Supreme Court Shields Religious Schools from Discrimination Lawsuits

By ,

Discrimination

On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot intervene in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools if those teachers have been entrusted to deliver religious instruction. The ruling has broad implications, potentially stripping away employment law protections from more than 300,000 teachers working at religious schools across the country. It may also impact other employees at Catholic hospitals, camps, and other religious workplaces.

The court reviewed two cases involving job bias claims filed by two Catholic schoolteachers in California. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the plaintiff alleged age discrimination bias because she was told days before her 65th birthday that her contract would not be renewed. In St. James School v. Biel, the teacher was terminated after she requested time off for surgery and chemotherapy treatment. Biel subsequently died of cancer, and her husband continued with the litigation on her behalf.

In writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated that the First Amendment protects the rights of religious institutions to decide for themselves, free from state interference and matters of church government, as well as those of faith and doctrine. The religion clauses in the First Amendment provide that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Alito referred back to a 2012 Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, where the Court ruled that teachers holding the title of minister could not sue for job bias. This ministerial exception bars employees from suing their religious school employers for discrimination.

Justice Alito stated that even though the Catholic schoolteachers in this case did not have the title of minister, their job functions were essentially the same because they were entrusted with providing religious instruction at least part of the week and prayed with the children. Prior to this case reaching the Supreme Court, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco allowed the lawsuits after ruling that the teachers were secular, rather than religious, employees.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that both teachers primarily taught secular subjects and were not required to be Catholic. Justice Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Implications for Future Employment Discrimination Cases

The ruling represents a win for Evangelical religious schools, as well as Catholic institutions. At the same time, it is a major setback for the LGBTQ community whose members gained protections against employment discrimination in a recent Supreme Court ruling. There are numerous state and federal laws protecting individuals from employment discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities in Employment Act. These laws and others make it illegal for employers to treat workers unfairly simply because of their race, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability. Regarding the cases of the two Catholic schoolteachers in California, there was evidence that age and disability discrimination occurred; however, that evidence was not in dispute. The issue was the constitutionality of applying employment law to religious institutions.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor noted that, with this ruling, so long as the employer determines that an employee’s duties are vital to carrying out the mission of the church, the employer can make employment decisions based on a person’s skin color, age, disability, sex, or any other protected trait for reasons having nothing to do with religion, permitting religious entities to discriminate widely and with impunity for reasons wholly unconnected to religious beliefs.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Clients with Complex Legal Challenges

The recent Supreme Court ruling confirms that the field of employment law is continually being revised. In matters of discrimination, the employer-employee relationship can be extraordinarily complex. Our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can help with your employment matter. To arrange an initial consultation, contact us online or call us at 215-574-0600. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court Shields Religious Schools from Discrimination Lawsuits
  Other posts by

Is a Company’s Best Defense the Employee Handbook?

By ,

SPG

Every business that maintains an office and team of employees exposes itself to the risk of harassment lawsuits, discrimination claims, and much more. When these claims do arise in the employment context, one of the most important pieces of evidence will be the employee handbook, should one exist. Even if a handbook already exists, they can quickly become outdated based on evolving law.

The employee handbook should be part of every employee’s onboarding process. New hires should be instructed to read the handbook and sign a document stating they have read and understand everything contained therein. Management should answer questions about handbook policies, but the handbook will speak for itself if there is a concern in the office.

How Does an Employee Handbook Handle Investigations?

The employee handbook should list every policy the company has from sick leave to office parties, travel expenses, and lunch breaks. In addition, a large portion of the handbook should explain what happens if misconduct is reported in the office. The handbook should explain that all incidents of harassment should be reported to an immediate supervisor and include that all reports are investigated regardless of merit.

Supervisors should have a handbook that tells them how to open an investigation, investigate claims, and/or report the claims to human resources. The company should investigate any claims of harassment, collect evidence, conduct interviews, and reach a well-documented conclusion.

Why Does it Matter?

If a company is sued by an employee who experienced harassment, management can point to the employee handbook since the company has laid out all the guidelines it uses to manage these cases. Employees who were terminated because of harassment claims should know they will be investigated and employees who do not report harassment are technically in violation of company policy. Management and employees must refer to the handbook for guidance. If a company does not have an established policy for workplace harassment, it can be sued easily because its employees do not know what to do if harassment occurs.

If management is not certain how to word the employee handbook, they may want a Philadelphia employment lawyer to review the document on their behalf. The company may also want the lawyer to craft a verification document that all employees must sign after reviewing any policies, such as a separate sexual harassment policy, fiduciary duties policy, and/or a drug use policy.

To be safe, management should review these documents every year with their staff. The company’s diligence ensures that employees know what is expected of them, and management can point to employees’ yearly reviews if a complaint is filed.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Navigate Issues Related To Employee Handbooks For Both Employers And Employees

If you would like to find out more about employee handbooks or have a potential lawsuit against your employer involving an employee handbook, reach out to our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. For an initial consultation, contact us online or call 215-574-0600 for assistance. We will review your case and discuss the next potential steps. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Successfully Defends Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

By ,

hire-clauses

In an opinion issued on June 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Eastern District upheld an earlier ruling favoring Tel-Stream Inc. and its owner, Yury Karnei, a subcontractor that services cellular towers. Attorney Gary Green of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. represented Tel-Stream and Mr. Karnei.

Tel-Stream performed work for the appellant Rullex, a telecommunications construction company. Sometime after commencing the work, Mr. Karnei, on behalf of Tel-Stream, signed a master service agreement and non-competition agreement with Rullex. The non-competition agreement prohibited Tel-Stream from working for Rullex competitors. Mr. Karnei has a limited understanding of English and believed his company was free to perform services for competitors after it finished working for Rullex.

Subsequent to completing the Rullex project, Tel-Stream accepted a job from Invertice, a Rullex competitor. Rullex filed a lawsuit claiming that Mr. Karnei and Tel-Stream had breached the restrictive covenant. Rullex also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop Tel-Stream and Mr. Karnei from working. During the initial preliminary injunction litigation, the parties testified that the non-competition agreement had been signed at a minimum months after Tel-Stream began working for Rullex. Attorney Gary Green argued that since the non-competition agreement was signed after Tel-Stream began working, and Rullex did not pay Tel-Stream additional consideration, then the non-competition agreement was unenforceable.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas ruled in Tel-Stream’s favor, however, Rullex appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. After the Superior Court ruled in Tel-Stream’s favor, Rullex then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, Chief Justice Saylor wrote that the Common Pleas Court had acted properly in denying Rullex the motion for injunctive relief because Rullex failed to present evidence that Tel-Stream understood and accepted the terms of the non-competition agreement at the time it started working for Rullex.

Philadelphia Restrictive Covenant Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Clients with Non-Compete Agreements

 Non-compete and non-disclosure agreements are the two most common types of restrictive covenants that employers use to protect their business interests. It is not unusual, however, for questions to arise regarding the legality of restrictive covenants. The skilled Philadelphia restrictive covenant lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are familiar with the nuances of these agreements and have been at the forefront of precedents established by Pennsylvania courts. If you have concerns about your restrictive covenant agreement, please call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online for an initial consultation. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Appeals in Courts
  Comments: Comments Off on Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Successfully Defends Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
  Other posts by

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Prohibits Discrimination Against LGBTQ Workers

By ,

Discrimination LGBTQ

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling declaring that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unequivocally applies to homosexual and transgender workers. Although about half of the states in the U.S. have laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ citizens in the workplace, this historic decision clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited nationwide. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers against discrimination during any phase of the employment process, including recruiting, hiring, training, assigning tasks, compensation, promotion, and firing.

According to the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law, more than eight million Americans in the workforce identity as LGBTQ, and nearly four million of them live in states that lack laws to protect them from workplace discrimination.

In writing the 6-3 opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that sex plays a necessary role in the decision, which is exactly what Title VII forbids. In Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Cases Considered by the Court

 The Supreme Court ruling considered several cases brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit where employers admitted to firing employees because they were homosexual or transgender. These cases included:

  • Bostock v. Clayton, County, Georgia: Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare advocate. Under his leadership, the county won national awards for its accomplishments. After Mr. Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league, he was fired for conduct “unbecoming” to a county employee.
  • Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda: Donald Zarda was employed by Altitude Express for several seasons as a skydiving instructor. He was fired several days after mentioning at work that he was gay.
  • G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Aimee Stephens worked at Harris Funeral Homes Inc. in Michigan. While undergoing treatment for depression, he was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and began exploring the prospect of transitioning. After six years of service with the funeral home, Stephens wrote a letter to management explaining that she planned to live and work full-time as a woman. She was subsequently fired.

Each employee filed a lawsuit alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. The employers in each of these cases did not attempt to deny that they fired these employees for being gay or transgender. Rather, they contended that Title VII does not apply to discrimination on the basis of being homosexual or transgender. Also, the employers argued that the legislators who drafted Title VII would not have expected the law to prohibit discrimination against homosexual or transgender persons.

In response, Justice Gorsuch wrote that while those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result, Title VII has been expanded in the past to protect the rights of pregnant employees or men subjected to harassment at work. Therefore, Title VII can be interpreted so as to protect the rights of LGBTQ employees.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Defend the Rights of LGBTQ Workers

The Supreme Court has made it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ employees in the workplace. If you or someone you know endured discrimination at work during any phase of employment, contact the experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will defend your rights to the fullest extent of the law. Call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out our contact form to schedule an initial consultation. We represent workers throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey from our Philadelphia office.