Riot Games Settles in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

League of Legends developer, Riot Games, will have to pay over $10 million to settle a class action lawsuit that was filed on behalf of approximately 1,000 women who worked for the company over the past five years. According to court documents, the plaintiffs alleged that the company established a clear pattern of discrimination and sexual harassment. In addition, female employees claimed that they did not receive equal compensation compared to their male counterparts. This was a violation of the California Equal Pay Act—many states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey have a similar law.

According to the terms of the settlement, each of the roughly 1,000 women who worked at Riot Games over the past five years is eligible to receive a portion of the settlement. The exact amount that each woman will receive depends on seniority, how long they worked at the company, and employment status, but most members of the class-action lawsuit will receive a minimum of $5,000. Full-time employees will receive more settlement money than part-time workers or contractors.

Investigation Reveals Sexist Culture

An investigation into the culture at Riot Games revealed a sexist environment where women were frequently exposed to “crotch grabbing,” “phantom humping,” and hot girl lists. Two women who initially sued Riot Games alleged that there were several women who did not receive equal pay, and who felt that their careers were being stifled by male employees. Several female employees alleged that they received pictures of the male genitalia. The lawsuit also accused the company of denying promotions to deserving female employees because they spoke out against the company’s male culture. In some cases, they were demoted or their benefits were withheld.

After Riot Games filed a motion to force plaintiffs into arbitration, over 150 employees walked out of the office to protest the motion. According to a Riot Games spokesperson, the company looks forward to resolving the lawsuit, and plans to demonstrate their commitment to creating an inclusive and supportive environment for all employees. However, several employees commented that the company’s efforts were overshadowed by the harmful workplace behavior and an ongoing pattern of filling senior positions with male employees.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Victims of Gender Discrimination

If you were discriminated against by your employer or another co-worker because of your gender, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Employment discrimination laws prohibit employers from harassing employers based on gender, and from retaliating against an employee for reporting discriminatory behavior. Our experienced legal team will ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation with one of our highly skilled employment lawyers, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Understanding Employment Law Helps Businesses Avoid Future Lawsuits  

By ,

SPG

When employers appreciate and respect their employees by offering competitive salaries and benefits packages, opportunities for promotions, and paid time off, their employees are generally more productive and loyal to the company. However, if an employee has been discriminated against or accuses the company of legal wrongdoing, an employer could face serious legal issues if they do not know how to protect themselves from lawsuits and discrimination claims. An experienced employment lawyer can answer all your questions and prepare the legal documents necessary to protect your company from future lawsuits.

One of the most important steps companies should take to avoid serious employment law disputes is to draft a comprehensive, detailed contract that takes as many possibilities into consideration as possible. This is true regardless of how big or small your company is. There is a tendency for entrepreneurs and small business owners to assume that employment law only applies to larger corporations. They do not always consider the fact that small business owners can get into hot water if they make bad hiring and firing decisions or treat their employees poorly.

Importance of Paid Time Off

Employers do not always recognize the value of giving employees paid leave. While some may think it is an unproductive expense, it pays off in the long run by encouraging employees to prioritize their health and wellbeing. Ultimately, this builds job satisfaction and productivity. In addition, if an employer expects employees to work long hours during a particularly busy time, they may be less likely to complain, or accuse the company of unfair treatment if they can take advantage of paid days off.

Employers should also make it a habit of documenting everything that happens in the workplace. For example, if an employee is injured, fill out a detailed accident report that includes information about how the accident occurred and how the company will handle it. Depending on the company size, employers may want to consider hiring a dedicated specialist that can help manage a company’s records.

Hiring an employment lawyer is a significant expense, but one that can save thousands of dollars. An employment lawyer should protect the company and have a thorough understanding of contracts and policies. However, they should not attempt to confuse an employee who accused the company of wrongdoing, simply to try and outwit them. Companies cannot depend on their legal team to bend the rules on their behalf.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Provide Skilled Legal Counsel for Employers

The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are highly skilled in all areas of law that impact the employer-employee relationship, including discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination. Our experienced legal team will work closely with you to create a litigation strategy that addresses your specific concerns. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

NLRB Supports Union Election Rule That Will Limit Unions’ Bargaining Power

By ,

SPG

According to a Bloomberg Law analysis, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) is supporting a rule change that would make it increasingly difficult for unions to defend themselves against anti-labor campaigns. However, the board based their decision on flawed data. The deficiencies in the data make the NLRB vulnerable to legal challenges.

Members of the NLRB hope to revamp the decades-old blocking charge policy that pauses elections to approve or decertify a union if unfair labor practices are suspected. The board argued that a proposed rule released in August allows unions to file petty actions against the NLRB that union members can use as a stalling tactic. According to the NLRB, 155 blocking actions were filed from 2016 to 2018, with a median number of days that the cases were delayed, ranging from 122 to 145.

After reviewing data supporting the rulemaking, a Bloomberg Law review found numerous examples of instances over the past three years when the board exaggerated the length of delays related to blocking charges. In fact, the board overcounted data in over one-third of the cases involving blocking charges. In one case, they were off by over 12 years. In those 55 cases, the board listed a delay that exceeded the total number of days from when a petition to approve or decertify a union was filed and when an election took place. This was statistically impossible.

These errors could cause problems for the NLRB if they were to face legal challenges from union representatives. According to a law professor at George Washington University, they should have fixed the mistakes by issuing an addendum. The action will be difficult to defend if they proceed without correcting it. He went on to suggest that the NLRB start the rulemaking process from scratch given the significance of the errors. A spokesman for the NLRB declined to comment on the discrepancies or the board’s methodology.

Data Discrepancies

The following are examples of possible causes of the data discrepancies:

  • If more than one allegation of improper conduct was made, the board incorrectly counted the cases.
  • There were problems with the board’s use of agency data. For example, there were duplicates of blocking charges, which the agency counted twice.
  • The board’s only Democrat accused the majority of overstating the number of petitions involving blocking charges.
  • The agency’s field staff declined from 1,136 in 2011 to approximately 857 in 2018.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Legal Matters Involving Union Workers

If you are a member of a union, and your rights have been violated in some way, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will work closely with you to ensure that you receive the full financial benefits you deserve. Our dedicated team will not stop fighting for you until you are completely satisfied. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Employment Law, NLRB, Unions
  Comments: Comments Off on NLRB Supports Union Election Rule That Will Limit Unions’ Bargaining Power
  Other posts by

Fired Law Firm Employee Not Entitled to Whistleblower Protections

By ,

SPG

A former accounts receivable clerk was terminated from her position at Martin & Seibert after she reported the firm for suspicious overbilling. She noticed billing irregularities, including billing clients at attorney rates for work that was done by secretaries and paralegals. After voicing her concerns to other individuals at the firm, she was fired. According to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, at-will private employees who report suspected criminal conduct are not entitled to whistleblower protections.

Shortly after she reported her suspicions, she discovered that her job had been posted. Another attorney at the firm told her that he suspected that certain members of the firm blamed her for the billing irregularities. He urged her to speak to a former U.S. attorney, who he reached out to for advice on her behalf. After speaking to the former accounts receivable clerk, the U.S. attorney contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

To protect herself, she collected 227 attachments of billable hour data and emailed it to herself. The firm fired her for disclosing confidential information, which was a violation of law firm policy. According to West Virginia courts, there is an exception to the rule that allows at-will employees to be fired if the employee is terminated for refusing to participate in illegal activity. However, the exception does not apply to employees who report wrongdoing. The court ruled that she was not entitled to whistleblower protections because she was a public employee. The legislature would be responsible for making any extensions to the law, not the court. A dissenting judge argued that the majority should have made an exception for an employee who is terminated for reporting alleged overbilling for legal services.

According to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the federal whistleblower claim was no longer viable after a February 2018 Supreme Court decision that required reporting to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This decision was in response to a certified question by a federal court regarding the former employee’s whistleblower lawsuit.

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

If you believe that you were wrongfully terminated from your job, it is in your best interest to contact the highly skilled Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. as soon as possible. We will work closely with you to understand the events leading up to your termination. Our experienced legal team will protect your rights and collect the documentation necessary to reach a successful settlement. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Supreme Court to Determine Whether Title VII Protections Include Sexual Orientation or Gender Status

By ,

SPG

In October 2019, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in a set of cases that could have a major impact on federal discrimination law, particularly as it applies to LGBTQ employees. The three cases involved two gay men and one transgender woman who were allegedly terminated because of their sexual orientation or gender status. According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not discriminate against an employee based on sex, race, national origin, or religion. The court will consider whether employers should be legally allowed to fire an employee simply because they are gay or transgender.

Case Facts

In the first case, a child-welfare coordinator for Clayton County, Georgia advocated for abused and neglected children. He was very successful at this job and loved helping underprivileged children. Yet, after his employer discovered he was gay, he was fired. Not only did he lose his job, but he lost his income and health insurance, which was devastating since he was fighting prostate cancer.

In the second case, a transgender woman who worked as a funeral director at the Harris Funeral Home in Livonia, Michigan decided to come out to her boss and co-workers and tell them about her gender identity. Two weeks after she wrote a letter to her boss explaining her situation, she was fired.

In the last case, a sky-diving instructor at Altitude Express went on tandem skydiving excursions with clients. He often informed female clients that he was gay in case they were uncomfortable about being strapped to a man during the tandem jump. The employee was fired after a female client claimed that he touched her inappropriately. However, according to employee, this never happened, and he was fired because of his sexual orientation.

Many of the Court’s conservative judges were skeptical about the arguments made by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and were opposed to finding that Title VII included protections for LGBTQ workers. However, they will have to examine the literal text of the law and consider the fact that the plaintiffs would not have been fired if they were straight. The more liberal justices will have to consider that, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was not likely that Congress intended it to prohibit against LGBTQ employees. In fact, homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association in 1964.

If the Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, discrimination cases involving LGBTQ workers will be treated the same as any other Title VII discrimination case. Employers will need to update their discrimination policies and train workers on how to comply with the new policies. If the Court rules against the plaintiffs, things will remain the same. Employers who already have anti-discrimination policies in place may continue to enforce them. The Court is expected to decide by June 2020.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protect the Rights of Employees

If you were discriminated at the workplace due to your protected status, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will protect your rights and secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Supreme Court to Determine Whether Title VII Protections Include Sexual Orientation or Gender Status
  Other posts by

Federal Judge Grants U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Class Status in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

The U.S. Women’s National Team filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation (“USSF”) alleging that they do not receive equal pay compared to the men’s team. In addition, they argued that their work conditions are not as favorable as the men’s conditions. This has been an ongoing fight among female athletes for years. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner ruled in favor of the women’s soccer team, saying that the class representatives had standing to pursue a lawsuit and certified three classes, and that the female players were paid less per game compared to the male players.

According to team co-captain, Megan Rapino, the decision validated their equal-pay campaign. The judge’s decisions essentially rejected the USSF’s argument that there was no discrimination because of the number of female players who earned more than some of the men’s players during that time. However, according to Klausner, there was no case law to support the premise.

The USSF has argued that the differences in compensation between the men’s and women’s teams was due to varying pay structures in the collective bargaining agreements, which are negotiated by the players on the team. However, according to the lawsuit, the USSF charters more flights for male players, which means that they have more comfortable accommodations and opportunities for rest. The men also experience fewer incidences of lost luggage. This ruling may encourage the USSF and its players to revisit efforts to reach an out-of-court resolution.

The USSF’s president said that they are very committed to resolving the matter in a way that is fair. A spokesperson for the female players said that they are happy that the court has recognized the USSF’s discrimination against female players. It is a major step in the right direction in the fight to achieve equal pay. One of the classes is seeking an injunction to prevent future discrimination, and a second class looks to obtain back pay and punitive damages, both of which fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Victims of Gender Discrimination

If you were treated unfairly because of your gender, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. will work tirelessly to investigate the details of your case and ensure that your legal rights are protected. Our skilled legal team will not stop fighting for you until you are completely satisfied. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Federal Judge Grants U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Class Status in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
  Other posts by

General Counsel for Wynn Casinos Involved in Invasion-of-Privacy Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

Kim Sinatra, former general counsel for Wynn Casinos, was named in an invasion of privacy lawsuit, alleging that she approved a secret undercover operation targeting Jorgen Nielsen, the former artistic director of a salon at the Wynn Las Vegas. In an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Nielsen publicly accused casino owner, Steve Wynn, of sexual misconduct. The lawsuit claimed that the operation was meant to obtain derogatory information about Nielsen in retaliation for being the named source in the Wall Street Journal article. The complaint also named Wynn Resorts CEO Matthew Maddox and Wynn director of security, James Stern.

According to the lawsuit, Nielsen alleged that Sinatra, Maddox, and Stern sent a spy posing as a client to the Palms Casino Resort, where he accepted a position after resigning from The Wynn Salon, in an effort to gather derogatory information that Wynn could use against him. Shortly after the undercover operation, Wynn filed a defamation lawsuit against Nielsen.

Suspicious Sequence of Events

Nielsen’s attorney discussed the troublesome details surrounding the timing of the alleged spy operation. In January 2018, Nielsen was the named source in a Wall Street Journal article. In February, Wynn resigned as chairman and CEO. The undercover operative was sent to the Palms Casino Resort in March, and Wynn filed a defamation lawsuit in April. Nielson’s lawsuit accused Sinatra, and the other parties named, of invasion of privacy, tortious interference with employment relationship, and civil conspiracy. The lawsuit stated that Stern organized the plan, while Sinatra and Maddox approved it.

In a statement provided by a Wynn spokesperson to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the lawsuit had no merit. Maddox provided a sworn statement before the Massachusetts Gaming Commission saying that the company did not authorize any inappropriate surveillance activity involving Jorgen Nielsen. Sinatra’s lawyer did not respond to a request for a comment

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. seek justice for victims of Invasion of Privacy

If your employment and reputation were jeopardized due to an invasion of privacy by an employer or other party, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. as soon as possible. We will investigate the details of your case and ensure that your legal rights are protected. Our dedicated team will not stop fighting for you until we secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Law Firm Reaches Settlement with Former Associate in Age Bias Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

Pryor Cashman LLP reached a settlement with a former associate who claimed that the law firm unfairly terminated his employment after 18 years on the job. The associate claimed that the law firm fired him because of his age, and that they were in violation of the Age Discrimination Act (“ADA”). The law firm argued that he was fired because of his performance, which was considered adequate for most of his time at the firm but had taken a noticeable turn for the worse. According to the members of the firm, he developed a negative, often arrogant attitude.

What is Age Discrimination?

If an employer treats an employee, or a prospective employee, unfavorably due to their age, it is considered age discrimination. This generally applies to employees who are over the age of 40. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) states that employers may not discriminate against individuals who are 40 years of age or older. Employees who are under the age of 40 are not protected under the ADEA, unless their state allows it. In addition, it is not considered illegal if an employer treats an older worker more favorably than a younger one, even if both individuals are over the age of 40. According to the ADEA, employers may not discriminate based on age in any aspect of the employment process, including hiring, salary amount, job responsibilities, promotions, training opportunities, benefits, and any other terms or conditions of employment.

Examples of Age Discrimination

Age discrimination can be obvious and offensive, or it can be subtle, but equally disturbing. Examples of age discrimination include the following:

  • Offensive comments about a person’s age
  • Not getting an interview because of an applicant’s age
  • An employer terminates older workers during company layoffs
  • Turning down older employers who request promotions
  • Firing older workers so that employers can hire younger workers and pay them less
  • Calling older workers names based on their age
  • Recruiting only prospective employees who are under the age of 40

Age discriminators can range from a victim’s supervisor or a co-worker to a client or a customer. Any employment policy or practice that has a negative impact on employees or applicants who are 40 years of age or older can be considered illegal. The only exception is if the policy or practice is based on a reasonable factor other than age.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. represent victims of Age Discrimination

If you or someone you know was discriminated against at work due to age, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Protecting your rights is our top priority and we will work tirelessly to obtain the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Patent Lawsuits on the Rise

By ,

SPG

After President Barack Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2011, there was a steady decline in patent lawsuits. However, according to data compiled by Unified Patents, close to 900 district court lawsuits regarding patents were filed in the second quarter of 2019 alone. It is unclear what is causing this increase, but when the economy slows down there is an uptick in intellectual property litigation. The emergence of cannabis products and technology related to smartphones has also had a major impact on the trademark space.

It remains to be seen whether this uptick is the start of a trend or simply a blip. It may take several months to determine whether a trend is emerging. Within the past decade, industries that generated more patent lawsuits are life sciences and technology that allows smartphones to communicate over the internet, according to an Ann Arbor-based intellectual property litigation attorney. Because of the number of new products across many industries, there has been a spike in lawsuits.

Congress Weighs in on IP Litigation

In an effort to prevent patent infringements, Senators reintroduced the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (“STRONGER”) Patents Act of 2019. They also met with other industry representatives to discuss intellectual property and develop legislation.

Federal legislation may make it easier for patent owners to protect their copyrights thanks to the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 (“CASE Act”). The bill, which includes House and Senate versions, seeks to create a small-claims process for copyright holders to obtain compensation for infringed works. The recovery amount will be capped at $15,000 per work. Currently, if a copyright holder pursues claims in federal court, they may face legal costs that exceed the judgment. In cases like this, it is generally recommended that copyright holders avoid litigation

The Defend Trade Secrets Act was established in 2016 to protect trade secrets. Prior to that, each state had its own system. The Defect Trade Secrets Act was introduced after the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, which gave the U.S. attorney general the power to prosecute an individual of a company that is involved in stealing trade secrets. Those who violate the act may be fined up to $500,000 and face up to 10 years in prison. Corporations may incur fines of up to $10 million.

Patent disputes can be very expensive, so businesses should consider the costs associated with making and marketing products versus the cost of defending intellectual property rights.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with IP Litigation Issues

If you need legal assistance with a patent lawsuit, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. as soon as possible. We have a proven track record of reaching successful outcomes for clients who have trademark issues. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Second Woman Files EEOC Complaint Against DLA Piper Partner

By ,

SPG

A former Human Resources (“HR”) manager with DLA Piper filed an anonymous complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against one of the company’s partners. The complaint alleges that the partner intimidated her, and that it got to the point where she felt afraid when they were in the office together. Despite a history of positive performance reviews, the HR manager was fired after she complained about the partner’s inappropriate behavior. This was the second woman to file an EEOC complaint against them.

The first complaint was filed against the firm by one of its junior partners, alleging that the partner sexually assaulted her on numerous occasions. In an open letter to the firm, she requested that she be released from the mandatory arbitration agreement so that she could pursue her claims in court. While the firm has not publicly responded to the arbitration request, they did announce that the partner had been let go. However, the junior partner was also put on leave, which her lawyer saw as a smear campaign against a female victim of sexual assault.

The new claimant says she was fired from DLA Piper after she complained about the partner’s inappropriate behavior. She alleged that she and other female employees at the firm felt uncomfortable being in an office alone with the partner, particularly if the door was closed. The details of her allegations are included in a supplemental letter that was sent to the EEOC as part of the initial charge. She is requesting that the EEOC investigate her complaint in conjunction with the initial complaint that was filed by the first complainant and expand the investigation to include a proposed class. According to the letter, there is a pattern of intimidation and retaliation for speaking out against sexually inappropriate behavior by male employees against the proposed class.

Examples of Alleged Abuse

The former HR Manager said that she was ordered to fire an administrative assistant who was over the age of 40, and who had a record of positive performance reviews. Rather than fire her, she transferred the employee to a different office. The partner was allegedly furious at the manager for not following his orders and threatened her by saying that she would be dealt with. Another female employee said that the partner expected women to tolerate his behavior if he paid them extra cash.

DLA Piper released a statement saying that the latest allegations were designed to distract from an ongoing investigation involving the junior partner that was fired. They deny that the partner sexually assaulted or harassed any female employees and was only guilty of poor judgment for having a relationship with an employee.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protect Victims of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace

If you or a loved one was sexually harassed or assaulted at work, do not hesitate to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will protect your legal rights and secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-547-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.