Philadelphia Passes Ordinance that Protects Parking Employees Wrongfully Discharged

By ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers represent employees who have been wrongfully discharged.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 ,

Philadelphia business lawyers assist clients with business and trademark issues.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.

  Category: Business Law, Trademark Infringement
  Comments: Comments Off on Lanham Act’s Ban on Immoral Trademarks is a Violation of the First Amendment, Superior Court Rules
  Other posts by

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

By ,

Philadelphia business litigation lawyers will fight for your rights against racial discrimination.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 ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers advocate for clients who's employer is violating FLSA.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.

  Category: Business Law, FLSA
  Comments: Comments Off on Department of Labor Conducts Investigation, Finds Many Employers in Violation of FLSA
  Other posts by

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

By ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers represent clients in age discrimination cases.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.

  Category: Age Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Time Warner Cable Employee Receives $334,500 in Damages after Proving Pretext for Age Discrimination
  Other posts by

Fiduciary Lawsuit Against University of Pennsylvania to Proceed

By ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers will help advise you against a fiduciary lawsuit.A lawsuit was filed against the University of Pennsylvania in 2016, alleging that the university breached its fiduciary duties of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 by allowing TIAA-CREF and Vanguard Group to collect excessive administrative fees from customers and retain investment options that underperformed. A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit, but a judge from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court reversed the dismissal of the third and fifth counts of the fiduciary lawsuit.

The third count of the fiduciary lawsuit alleges that the university:

  • Charged excessive administrative fees
  • Did not solicit bids from other service providers
  • Failed to monitor revenue sharing
  • Failed to grow the plan in order to get lower fees or rebates
  • Did not effectively review plan management

The fifth count the fiduciary lawsuit claimed that the university allowed the providers to charge unreasonable investment fees. In addition, the university retained high-cost investment options that had a history of performing poorly compared to alternative options. The appeals court filing also said that the university retained multiple options in the same asset class and investment style.

Judge Finds Allegations Plausible

According to 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Dennis Michael Fisher, the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty were plausible, and that the District Court mistakenly ignored reasonable inferences that were supported by facts. However, the University of Pennsylvania argues that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts that contradicted inferences that were favorable toward the university.

A spokesperson from the University of Pennsylvania released a statement saying that the court dismissed five of the seven claims, and that the remaining two claims are without merit. He went on the say that the university has a track record of administering the retirement plan in the best interests of the faculty and staff.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Cases Involving Breach of Fiduciary Duty

If your employer failed to uphold its fiduciary duty, resulting in financial losses, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We handle a wide range of employment issues, including investment fraud and financial advisor misconduct. 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.

  Category: Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Fiduciary Lawsuit Against University of Pennsylvania to Proceed
  Other posts by

Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Challenging Trans-Friendly Restroom Policy

By ,

Philadelphia local counsel advocate for LGBTQ & trans-friendly restroom policy.In the case of Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of an anonymous group of students lead by “Joel Doe” and his parents. The lawsuit claimed that Doe and a group of students who attended Boyertown Area High School felt uncomfortable sharing a restroom with a transgender student. The students also argued that the mere presence of a transgender individual in a single-space area – like a restroom – threatened their health and safety. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

By refusing to hear the lawsuit, the ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stands, which means that transgender students may use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity. According to Appeals Court Judge Theodore McKee, the Boyertown Area School District created a policy that respected the unique needs of transgender students. This starts with allowing them to access spaces that match their gender identity.

Boyertown’s Policy Does Not Violate the Rights of Other Students

The lower court ruled that allowing transgender students in sex-segregated schools did not violate the rights of students who are cisgender, or whose own gender experiences correspond to their birth sex. In addition, it does not violate their rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. According to the law, schools may provide single-sex bathrooms that are comparable to other single-sex facilities, but it is not mandatory. Boyertown’s current policy also states that a student may use gender-neutral or single-user restrooms if they would rather not use the shared facilities.

Doe and the other students said that the presence of transgender students in bathrooms made them uncomfortable. They further argued that the current policy is a form a sexual harassment. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) got involved with the case to support the Pennsylvania Youth Congress, which is a group of LGBTQ leaders and youth organizations. The ACLU also intervened on behalf of a transgender student who had attended Boyertown Area Senior High School during the previous year. According to a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, the outcome of the lawsuit is a tremendous victory for transgender students.

Philadelphia Local Counsel at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Transgender Rights

If your civil rights have been violated because of your LGBTQ status, Philadelphia local counsel at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. will protect your rights, including your right to use the restroom that corresponds to your gender identity. 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.

  Category: Discrimination
  Comments: Comments Off on Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Challenging Trans-Friendly Restroom Policy
  Other posts by

SugarHouse Casino Sued by Gamblers for Unfair Losses

By ,

Philadelphia business lawyers represent victims of unfair gambling conditions.Recently, two card players filed a lawsuit against SugarHouse HSP Gaming, L.P. and Rush Street Gaming of Chicago after they lost a combined total of close to a quarter of a million dollars at the SugarHouse casino in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that SugarHouse supplied their table with decks of cards that were illegitimate, including decks that had too few cards, too many cards, or decks that had not been properly shuffled. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, which includes the $250,000 in gambling losses, as well as punitive damages and attorney fees.

According to the lawsuit, the two men lost a total of $250,870.18 between the two of them between May 2017 and January 2018. The plaintiffs accused the casino of fraud and failing to provide an honest wagering environment for customers. For example, one casino worker found 16 cards left in an automatic shuffler. Investigators found that the cards were missing from six decks, and those six decks were used in many card games during the previous day, including 46 rounds of blackjack.

A spokesman from SugarHouse released a statement saying that the employees responsible for these infractions have been either disciplined or terminated. In addition, the casino has taken steps to improve the procedures in order to prevent this from happening again.

Other Complaints Against SugarHouse

This is not the first time that SugarHouse has been named in a lawsuit. On July 26, 2018, SugarHouse was fined $100,000 by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board for using broken shuffling machines or dealing cards using illegitimate decks from May 2017 to January 2018. SugarHouse did admit that there were a number of occasions when employees did not properly address the warning lights on the automatic shufflers used at poker, blackjack, and mini-baccarat tables. None of the players involved in these games were reimbursed, and the plaintiff accused the casino of failing to provide a “fair and honest wagering environment.”

While most gamblers understand the odds of winning big are against them, there is a certain thrill in the possibility of beating the house. When illegitimate cards are being used, the house has an unfair advantage over players who are trying to win fair and square.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Represent Victims of Unfair Gambling Conditions

If you experienced an unfair or dishonest environment while participating in poker, blackjack, or any other card game at a casino, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. We will investigate the details of your case and ensure that you receive the financial compensation that you deserve. Protecting your rights is our top priority. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-547-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we assist clients across Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

  Category: Business Law
  Comments: Comments Off on SugarHouse Casino Sued by Gamblers for Unfair Losses
  Other posts by

Department of Labor Proposes Update to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s Overtime Rates

By ,

Philadelphia overtime lawyers are knowledgeable in all aspects of overtime and the FLSA.In March 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) suggested an update to the FLSA’s definition of “regular pay” in order to make it easier for employees to calculate employee overtime premiums. This proposal is supported by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) because the changes will provide more clarity in the overtime calculation process, therefore making it easier for employers to offer benefits to their employees without fear of violating any standards.

Currently, the “regular rate” of pay is not clearly defined, and in order to avoid violation of the FLSA standards, employers are not offering certain benefits such as public transportation subsidies, tuition reimbursement, and more. The proposal by the DOL to clarify the meaning of “regular pay” should hopefully decrease uncertainty and encourage employers to offer such benefits without fear of a lawsuit.

As of now, overtime rate must be paid once employees work over 40 hours and that it must be at least 1 ½ times their regular rate. However, overtime rates also must include all payments for employment unless it falls under one of the statutory exceptions. For example, in addition to hourly wages and salaries, the regular rate also includes most bonuses, on-call pay, commissions and more. The DOL’s proposed amendment to the FLSA would clarify that the following benefits are excluded from the regular rate calculation: tuition reimbursement, employer-provided gyms, reimbursed expenses, and more.

Hopefully, once the proposed changes come into effect, employers will offer more benefits to their employees. The proposed changes should, at the very least, create clarity in the FLSA so employees are compensated fairly for their overtime work.

For more information, call our Philadelphia overtime lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

  Category: FLSA, Wage and Hour Disputes
  Comments: Comments Off on Department of Labor Proposes Update to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s Overtime Rates
  Other posts by

HUP Employee Fired While Recovering from Breast Cancer Treatment

By ,

Philadelphia business lawyers assist clients with employment disputes.The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania has a reputation for being a leading breast cancer treatment center. When an anesthesiology technician who worked at the hospital was diagnosed with breast cancer, she knew that she was in good hands, and that she would receive excellent treatment, which she did. Unfortunately, while the employee was still undergoing chemotherapy and radiation, she was fired from her job, which caused her and her family significant financial hardship and stress.

A mammogram and biopsy confirmed the cancer after the plaintiff found a lump in her breast. Doctors performed a lumpectomy and checked to see if the cancer had spread into the lymph nodes, which it had. As a result, she had to undergo more aggressive treatment, including a mastectomy followed by 16 weeks of weekly chemotherapy, then six weeks of daily radiation. She was able to take a four-month medical leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act so that she could rest and recover from the side effects of treatment.

Plaintiff Fired After Second Request for Medical Leave

After the initial extension of her medical leave, her doctors requested a second extension due to the physical effects of the radiation, including burns, tight skin, and open wounds. The hospital’s Office of Disability Management replied to the request, saying that her department supervisor would determine whether accommodations should be made that would not impose an undue hardship. However, instead of receiving an accommodation, the plaintiff received a termination letter in the mail following a series of unpleasant phone conversations with a representative from the hospital’s personnel department.

According to the plaintiff, at no point did anyone at the hospital ever give any indication that her job was in jeopardy. She had to move in with her mother after exhausting her disability and unemployment benefits, and is now working as a classroom aide in a local school. She filed a lawsuit against the hospital and is seeking financial compensation for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The hospital has since filled her position, and the new hire’s start date was the same day the plaintiff would have returned to work if the second request for a leave of absence had been approved.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with Employment Disputes

If your employment was unfairly terminated or your legal rights were compromised in any way, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will conduct a thorough investigation into your case, and the circumstances surrounding your termination. If we determine that your legal rights were violated, we will seek the financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law, FMLA
  Comments: Comments Off on HUP Employee Fired While Recovering from Breast Cancer Treatment
  Other posts by