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.

Pennsylvania Democrats Urge Lawmakers to Allow Student Athletes to Receive Endorsement Money

By ,

SPG

Student-athletes receive thousands of dollars in scholarship money. In fact, some students receive full scholarships for all four years of college. Yet, until recently, college athletes were prohibited from accepting compensation through lucrative endorsement deals. The governor of California recently signed legislation that will allow college athletes to receive endorsement money while maintaining their status as an amateur athlete. Democrats from Pennsylvania are hoping to follow suit and provide the same opportunity to college athletes in Pennsylvania.

According to Pennsylvania Democratic State Representatives, colleges and universities get recognition for their star athletes. These students should be compensated for their contribution, particularly when their name, image, and likeness is used. Governor Tom Wolf is open to having a conversation with the General Assembly about how to improve the system for student athletes, including those who may have endorsement opportunities.

New Legislation Would Level the Playing Field

One Representative argued in favor of the legislation, pointing out that college coaches can make millions of dollars for coaching student athletes, and corporations make billions of dollars using names and faces of popular athletes. Most college athletes do not go on to become highly paid professional athletes, so it is only fair that they are financially compensated for the athletic contribution they are making to the college or university.

Pennsylvania is one of four other states that has modeled the legislation after the California law. The NCAA opposed the California law, saying that it should have the opportunity to develop a national strategy for handling compensation for student athletes. The NCAA also released a statement saying that, with over 1,100 campuses and close to half a million student-athletes across the country, it is not possible to provide a fair and level playing field when each state has different laws related to compensating student athletes.

The Representatives have been monitoring the controversy for several years and will continue to track it. They hope it attracts support from both sides of the isle, but it is unclear at this point which committee the legislation will be assigned to as it may take time for the bill to gain traction.

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

If you are a student athlete, and you believe you are entitled to compensation from endorsement deals or other potentially lucrative contracts, contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. today. If legislation is passed that allows college athletes to be compensated, we will 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 Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

NLRB Addresses Issues Regarding Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

By ,

SPG

In the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of employment contracts that prevent employees from pursuing collective litigation against their employer. Following this ruling, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued several decisions that addressed arbitration agreements containing class and collective action waivers. According to the NLRB, these agreements are unenforceable. The NLRB’s recent decisions include new parameters for these arbitration agreements.

In August 2019, the NLRB issued its Supplemental Decision, Order, and Notice to Show Cause in the case of Cordua Restaurants, Inc. and Steven Ramirez and Rogelio Morales and Shearone Lewis, 368 NLRB No. 43 (2019). The case resolves important issues related to Epic Systems v. Lewis.

NLRB Holdings

  • Holding One: The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not prohibit employers from promulgating mandatory arbitration agreements involving employees who intend to pursue collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the NLRB, Section 7 of the NLRA protects an employee’s right to participate in class actions and other protected concerted activities.
  • Holding Two: The NLRA does not prohibit employers from notifying employees that they will be terminated if they fail to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement. An assistant manager notified employees that they would be removed from the schedule if they did not sign an arbitration agreement. Employees claimed that this violated the NLRA. However, the NLRB found that the manager’s statements were an explanation of the lawful consequence of refusing to sign the agreement.
  • Holding Three: Employers may not take retaliatory action against employees for filing a class action lawsuit. A Cordua employee who filed a collective action against his employer argued that the employer violated the NLRA by terminating his employment because he discussed wage issues with fellow employees and filed an FLSA collective action for wage and overtime violations. The NLRB ruled in favor of the employee, stating the decision is consistent with the board’s long-standing precedent.

The NLRB’s decisions have a significant impact on employers because it makes it clear that they may not take adverse action against employees for discussing wage issues, requesting personal records for the purpose of confirming that the employer is in compliance with obligations, or engaging in protected activity, including filing legal claims against an employer.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Counsel Clients on All Types of Arbitration Matters

The Philadelphia business litigation lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. have a track record of reaching successful settlements involving arbitration agreements. Protecting our clients’ legal rights is our top priority. 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.

NLRB Rule Does Not Recognize Graduate Students as Employees

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia employment lawyers assist clients with NLRB employment issues.Graduate students often teach classes and conduct valuable research while earning an advanced degree. However, according to a proposed rule by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), graduate students are not considered employees, meaning they do not have the right to unionize. Graduate students from leading private institutions across the country have mobilized to fight for unionization to secure higher wages, better benefits, and protection for workers to help deal with sexual harassment and discrimination complaints. If passed, the rule would undercut those efforts.

According to the professor of labor and employment law at Cornell University and general counsel for the American Association of University Professors, the current NLRB is made up of mostly conservative board members who happen to be extremely political and intent on overruling decisions made by previous administrations that expanded employee rights to unionize. According to the professor, the NLRB made these decisions on a case-by-case basis in the past, but that appears to be changing.

Is Graduate Work Considered Work or Education?

At the heart of the argument is whether the teaching and research that graduate students conduct is considered work, or if it is part of their continued education. In 2016, the NLRB decided that Columbia students who were paid to teach and conduct research were considered employees and had the right to unionize. Prior to that, there was some back and forth among NLRB members, which impacted students’ rights to unionize. Prior to the Columbia decision, representatives from nine prestigious universities argued that graduate students have an academic relationship with the university, rather than an economic one. However, the NLRB ruled that graduate students could have a dual status of economic and academic.

Following the Columbia decision, students have come together to form unions at several private universities such as Harvard University, Brown University, Yale University, the University of Chicago, and several others voting in favor of unionization. Graduate students who are currently negotiating for employee status are unsure about how the proposed rule will impact their efforts. If the rule is passed, students have vowed to continue to fight for unionization.

Students at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Boston College, and the University of Pennsylvania sent petitions to the NLRB but withdrew them out of fear that Trump-appointed members would issue an anti-union decision. According to the executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions at Hunter College, it is Congress that has the authority to decide employment status, but the NLRB rule seems to be taking over that authority.

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

If you are a graduate student at a college or university, and your employment status prevents you from being able to unionize, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protecting your legal rights is our top priority and we will ensure that you receive the financial compensation to which you are entitled. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Former Employees Allege Pension Cuts During Corporate Restructuring

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia employment lawyers handle employee pension issues.Talen Energy is a privately-owned independent power producer that serves commercial and industrial customers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Ohio, and the District of Columbia. In 2016, the company was bought by Riverstone Holding, a New York City-based private investment firm that specializes in the energy industry. According to a federal lawsuit, three former senior engineers from Talen claimed that the company failed to pay them their full pensions after Riverstone Holding took over the company.

All three former employees worked at PPL’s Brunner Island power plant in York County. PPL’s energy supply division became Talen Energy, which continued to own Brunner Island. When Talen Energy was launched on June 1, 2015, the company inherited PPL’s pension provisions. According to the attorney, who represents the former employees, Talen and the senior executives responsible for administering the pension did not pay the men their full pensions required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Court documents claimed that Talen Energy owes them approximately $750,000 in pension costs.

ERISA Anti-Cutback Rule

ERISA includes an anti-cutback rule, which states that employers may not reduce or eliminate early retirement pension benefits that employees have accrued over time. When Talen was taken over by Riverstone Holdings, the then-employees lost their jobs. Since they were all under the age of 60, they were entitled to their full pensions, as well as pension supplements for losing their jobs.

However, Talen executives were allegedly responsible for reducing the retirement payment for each of the three former employees. They also supposedly omitted several provisions for full pensions and supplements that had been in PPL’s pension plan. As a result, they would have been compensated thousands of dollars less than they were legally entitled to receive. According to the workers’ attorney, Talen retained employee benefit plans after the spin-off from PPL. This key piece of information will be presented in court.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Employee Pension Issues

If you did not receive your full pension from your employer, do not hesitate to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Federal law states that employers may not withhold pension benefits from eligible employees. We will protect your rights and work tirelessly to secure the full pension amount to which you are entitled. We 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 South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Former Employees Allege Pension Cuts During Corporate Restructuring
  Other posts by