Investment Banker Can be Held Liable for Sending False Statements in Email Signed by Director of Firm

By ,

Philadelphia FINRA lawyers assist clients with FINRA claims.In the case, Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that an investment banking director can be held liable for false statements he emailed to a client, even though the director’s boss wrote the content of the email and directed him to send it. In a 6-2 ruling, the court found that the director could be held liable under securities laws, even though the 2011 decision in Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders found that liability for false statements only applied to those with “ultimate authority over the statement.”

However, the Court in Lorenzo distinguished the Janus decision due to the fact that the Janus decision was based specifically on the second prong of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, which prohibits individuals or entities from making untrue statement of material fact or omitting a material fact. The person making the statement has “ultimate authority of the statement,” according to the court. Unlike in Janus, the Court found in Lorenzo that the first prong of Rule 10b-5, which bars any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, applies.

According to Court documents, in October of 2009, the director was told that the total assets of his only investment banking client at the time – Waste2Energy – was less than $400,000. However, on October 14, 2009, the director reached out to prospective investors via email about Waste2Energy. The emails stated that the company had assets of $10 million. The emails were signed by the director, but he testified that the firm’s owner instructed him to send the emails.

In addition to being fined $15,000 for sending the emails, the SEC barred the director from working in the securities industry. While Lorenzo argued that since he did not make the untrue statement, he should not be held liable under Janus, Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, affirmed the Circuit Court decision, which stated that the director violated subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5 and related statutory provisions.

Examples of Investment Fraud

The following are common examples of investment fraud and financial advisor misconduct:

  • Securities fraud
  • Failure to disclose the risks associated with certain investments
  • Making frequent trades for the purpose of generating commissions, also known as churning
  • Lack of suitability
  • Unauthorized trading

If an investor wants to file a claim against a financial advisor, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 12200 states that he or she must arbitrate their claims, as opposed to litigating the claims in court. The FINRA rules state that customers have six years from the time of the event to file a claim. Because FINRA arbitration orders are final, and can only be appealed in limited circumstances, it is highly recommended that investors seek legal counsel from an experienced FINRA lawyer.

Philadelphia FINRA Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Assist Clients with FINRA Claims

If you have been the victim of investment fraud, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia FINRA lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. We have handled a wide range of disputes involving investment fraud and financial advisor misconduct, and we will ensure that your legal rights are protected. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we assist clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law, FINRA Claims
  Comments: Comments Off on Investment Banker Can be Held Liable for Sending False Statements in Email Signed by Director of Firm
  Other posts by

Dismissing Federal Lawsuit Does Not Delay Statute of Limitations

By ,

Philadelphia appellant lawyers assist clients with the appeals for statute of limitations.In the case of Jaiden Buchan v. The Milton Hershey School, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled that the clock does not stop on the statute of limitations for making a claim in state court, simply because someone voluntarily withdraws a lawsuit. Buchan filed a complaint against the school in December of 2016, alleging that the school had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act. She voluntarily withdrew her lawsuit against the school on June 19, 2017. The plaintiff filed a writ of summons in July of 2017, but the court ruled that the voluntary withdrawal of her lawsuit was not the same as a federal court dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

According to Judge Alice Beck Dubow, since Buchan filed an action in federal district court, and then voluntarily dismissed it, this does not toll the statute of limitations. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the case in April 2018, saying that since there was no pause caused by the federal suit, the window to file an action closed when Buchan turned 20, which was six months before she filed the Complaint in state court.

Claims Made by Buchan

Buychan claimed that the school neglected her mental health issues, unfairly punished her for getting a tattoo, and accused her of starting a fire at the school, which resulted in her being expelled from the school. She initially filed claims in the federal court in December 2016, alleging that the school intentionally inflicted emotional distress, as well as other violations of the ADA, including breach of fiduciary duties of care and malicious prosecution. However, Buchan withdrew the suit in June of 2017.

Later that year, Buchan filed a writ of summons in Dauphin County, and two months later she filed a complaint alleging negligence, breach of duties of care and good faith, emotional distress, and malicious prosecution. The state court dismissed the case, saying that it was time-barred. Buchan appealed, arguing that according to the Title 42, Section 5103 of Pennsylvania’s Consolidated Statutes, the statute of limitations is tolled when a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Because she withdrew her case, Buchan argued that she “rendered the federal court without federal jurisdiction.” As a result, her federal suit should have stopped the clock. In addition, she argued that the Title 28, Section 1367 of the U.S. Code gave her 30 days to refile in state court if a federal court did not exercise supplemental jurisdiction. According to Buchan, less than 30 days had passed between the voluntary dismissal and the first filing in the state lawsuit. Section 1367 included voluntarily dismissed cases.

The Superior Court ruled that the “voluntarily dismissed” part of Section 1367 only applies to claims that are not being considered by the federal court under supplemental jurisdiction. Judge Dubrow wrote that the language in the Section 1367 does not apply to Buchan’s case because she voluntarily dismissed all of the state law claims she asserted in her federal complaint under supplemental jurisdiction.

Philadelphia Appellant Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Assist Clients with the Appeals Process

The Philadelphia appellant lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. have extensive experience handling various types of appeals, including issues relating to employment discrimination, due process, and constitutional law, among others. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Center City Philadelphia, where we serve clients from Southeastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and New Jersey.

Comcast Contractor Ordered to Pay $7.5 Million in Unpaid Overtime

By ,

Philadelphia overtime claims lawyers secure overtime pay for workers. O.C. Communications is a national fulfillment contractor for low-voltage installations, which prides itself as having some of the best, most highly trained employees. However, according to a recent lawsuit, some of the company’s employees were not paid for the overtime hours they worked. In addition, the company did not allow meal breaks and did not reimburse employees for money spent on tools and other equipment that was used for work.

Employee Accusations

One O.C. Communications employee said that the company scheduled him to make 32 job stops in one day, where normally he was only assigned eight stops. In addition, his supervisor ordered him to work through his meals, which usually meant eating while driving, and he was expected to remain available via his cell phone at all times, so that he could immediately respond to work-related calls.

Another worker shared that he was not reimbursed for equipment he purchased for his job, including a wireless drill, drill bits, pliers, a staple gun, as well as boots and pants.

Failure to Pay Workers for Overtime Hours

O.C. Communications and Comcast Corp were both named in the federal class-action lawsuit.

In early March, both companies agreed to settle the lawsuit. As a result, the $7.5 million would be split among the roughly 4,500 techs involved in the lawsuit.

According to the legal team representing the plaintiffs, the workers had not been paid for 2.5 hours of off-the-clock work per day, and that the companies had violated state and federal laws, including a failure to compensate tech workers for piecework and overtime wages.

The lawsuit states that Comcast controlled the majority of O.C. Communications’ revenue stream. In addition, the company continuously monitored the work activities and work progress of all technicians throughout the day, using their mobile devices.

The suit further claimed that based on the call logs between O.C. Communications and Comcast, it appeared that the technicians were “fully integrated into the Comcast business.”

Settlement Agreement Reached

The plaintiffs considered the possibility that O.C. Communications would not be able to pay a significant amount of the damages, and that Comcast may not be held liable as a joint employer. However, after extensive litigation and the production of 1.5 million documents, the two companies agreed to settle the case.

Philadelphia Overtime Claims Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Secure Overtime Pay for Workers

If you have not been paid for the overtime hours you worked, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia overtime claims lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Our experienced legal team will work tirelessly to ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the maximum 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 in Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and across New Jersey.

Department of Labor Announces Much Anticipated Proposal on Overtime Pay

By ,

In early March, the Department of Labor (DOL) released a proposal that would make it possible for more workers to collect overtime pay. According to the proposal, employees who earn an annual salary of $35,000 would be able to collect time-and-a-half for the number of hours they worked beyond the 40-hour work week.

Currently, employees who make $24,000 per year are eligible for overtime, so this proposal would expand the number of employees who could collect overtime pay.

Threshold Adjustments

This latest proposal is an increase from the current threshold, which entitles employees who make an annual salary of $24,000 to collect overtime. However, it is not as high as the proposal made by the Obama administration, which would have allowed workers making $47,000 per year to collect overtime once they surpassed 40 hours in a week.

The DOL’s latest proposal would allow more workers to collect time-and-a-half for their overtime work. The proposal made by the Obama administration also included periodic increases of the salary threshold, which this latest proposal does not have. Rather, the DOL is looking for comments from the public about whether they should update the overtime requirements every four years.

The Obama administration threshold was blocked by a judge in 2017 and is still subject to an ongoing appeals process. The judge had made this decision saying that the DOL was focused too heavily on the amount of money workers make, rather than their jobs.

Potential Legal Challenges

The last time the salary threshold was increased was in 2004. While the DOL hopes to avoid litigation by using the same economic methodology that was used by the George W. Bush administration in 2004, this latest proposal is likely to face legal challenges. Businesses will likely voice their concerns over the impact the proposal will have on their ability to meet rising payroll costs. Worker advocates will argue that the proposal falls short when it comes to expanding overtime pay.

Other legal issues may arise in response to the DOL’s decision against varying the salary threshold based on cost of living differences in different regions across the country. Large businesses and worker groups, in particular, oppose this decision.

Other critics of the proposal say that fewer employees are eligible for time-and-a-half pay due to the delay in modifying the requirements for overtime pay. According to an Economic Policy Institute Senior Economist, millions of workers who should have received overtime protections under the 2016 rule will not be covered by this new rule.

In addition, many believe that the standards are outdated and do not reflect the realities of the 2019 workplace. However, a DOL official said that the general overtime methodology has been proven to work, and the DOL is confident that it is appropriate for the purpose of updating the salary threshold.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Secure Overtime Pay for Eligible Workers

If you have been denied overtime wages, the Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. will work to secure the full compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. We will continue to fight for you until we have your complete satisfaction. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Upholds “Two Schools of Thought Doctrine”

By ,

In the case Sensenich v. Morcos, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant, alleging that unnecessary stenting procedures were performed on him. In addition, the plaintiff further alleged that the defendant, as well as other physicians from Westmoreland County Cardiology (WCC), had established a pattern of excessive and unnecessary stenting with other patients.

A Westmoreland County judge instructed the jury on the “two schools of thought doctrine,” which the plaintiff alleged was improper, because it was not applicable to the claims in the case.

Despite this flawed instruction, the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the Westmoreland County jury’s verdict that ruled in favor of the defendant.

Two Schools of Thought Doctrine

Depending on a patient’s specific medical condition, there may be multiple treatment options, all of which are considered effective by experienced medical professionals. It is up to the physician to determine which treatment approach makes the most sense for the patient.

The “two schools of thought doctrine” states that when the chosen treatment option does not accomplish its goal, or compromises the patient’s health in any way, the fact that the physician chose one healthcare approach over the other does not make the decision negligent. In addition, juries should not be expected to determine which of the two acceptable treatment options should have been performed by the physician.

The jury found that the defendant obtained consent from the plaintiff to perform the stent procedure, that there was no battery, and the treatment was not performed negligently. In addition, the jury found that there was no corporate negligence involving Excela Health or civil conspiracy among the defendants.

Superior Court Findings

The Superior Court ruled that although the Westmoreland County judge’s “two schools of thought doctrine” instruction was flawed, it ultimately did not sway the jury, who ruled in favor of the defendant. The Pennsylvania Superior Court, made up of a three-judge panel, upheld the Westmoreland County jury’s verdict.

According to a judge from the three-judge Superior Court panel, the defendants succeeded in shifting the focus to the way that the stenting was performed, rather than whether the arteries should have been stented at all. The two schools of thought involved healthy-to-healthy stenting versus spot stenting. The trial judge recognized that the two methods of stenting did not impact the defendant’s decision to place a stent in a vessel that was insufficiently occluded to warrant that intervention.

The Superior Court further found that the only claims upon which the jury reached a verdict were for the unnecessary stenting claims, for which the “two schools of thought doctrine” were not applicable, and the Trial Court specifically instructed the jury to not apply the doctrine to those claims.

The plaintiff’s lawyers may file a petition for reargument.

Philadelphia Malpractice Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Seek Justice for Victims of Medical Errors

If you or a loved one have been injured while under the care of a healthcare professional, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia malpractice lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will help you navigate the claims process and ensure that your legal rights are protected at all times. Our experienced team will seek the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices of conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients across southeastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey and New Jersey.

  Category: Medical Malpractice
  Comments: Comments Off on Pennsylvania Superior Court Upholds “Two Schools of Thought Doctrine”
  Other posts by

How Job Changes Impact Employees with Disabilities

By ,

If you have ever shopped at Walmart, it is likely that you were greeted by a Walmart employee whose job it is to welcome you to the store. Since the job of a greeter is not particularly strenuous, nor is it difficult to learn, it is a good fit for employees who have certain disabilities.

Unfortunately, Walmart recently announced that it would be replacing the “greeter” job with a “customer host,” which has more responsibilities, including lifting, cleaning, and long periods of standing. For disabled workers who cannot carry out these responsibilities, this means that they are going to lose their job.

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), in the event of a job change, employers must provide reasonable accommodations that will allow the employee to do their job.

Examples of Reasonable Accommodations

Employers can work with disabled employees to come up with possible accommodations that will allow the employee to continue doing their job.

The following are examples of accommodations that can be made:

  • Modifying existing facilities so that disabled employees can use them. This includes adjusting the height of equipment for employees who are wheelchair-bound, installing screen magnifiers for workers who are visually impaired, and installing telecommunications for hearing-impaired workers.
  • Adjusting the work-week to a ten-hour/four-day work week, which will allow workers to attend weekly appointments for treatment or physical therapy.
  • Allowing disabled employees to take oral exams instead of written.
  • Transferring an employee to a different location so that they can do that same job, but with better medical care.

If, however, a specific accommodation would impose an undue hardship, the employer would not be required to make that change. The employer will be responsible for providing proof that the requested accommodation is an undue hardship, which can be difficult to do.

The courts will look at everything from tax credits and other sources of money as well as whether the disabled employee has expressed a willingness to pay for part of the costs.

How to Request an Accommodation

You will need to notify your employer, either in writing or face-to-face, that you require an accommodation as a result of your disability. It is highly recommended that you put the request in writing, so that you have a paper trail in case your employer disputes the request.

Your employer may not ignore your request. Once the request has been made, your employer should respond as quickly as possible. If your employer fails to respond in a timely manner, it could result in a violation from the ADA.

It is unclear if Walmart has been or will be providing reasonable accommodations for the greeters with disabilities who will be using their jobs. Several greeters who have already lost their jobs due to Walmart’s new requirements have filed law suits.

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

If your job was changed, and your employer did not make reasonable accommodations for you, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. We will secure the financial compensation that you are entitled to receive. 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 in Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and across New Jersey.

  Category: Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on How Job Changes Impact Employees with Disabilities
  Other posts by

Pennsylvania Proposes Restrictions on Non-Compete Agreements

By ,

Pennsylvania is proposing to become one of several states where the use of non-compete agreements will be restricted.

After Massachusetts, New York City, and New Jersey introduced bills designed to protect workers from the dangers of non-compete agreements, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Pennsylvania have continued this trend by introducing proposals that will limit the use of these agreements.

If passed, the Pennsylvania and Vermont bills will ban all non-compete agreements in ordinary employee relationships. The New Hampshire bill was defeated in March 2018.

Prohibiting Non-Compete Agreements

The Vermont bill and the Pennsylvania bill both will prohibit all non-compete agreements, with the exception of those having to do with the sale of a business or dissolution of a business partnership. In the Vermont bill, the description of the prohibited agreement does not clarify whether both non-solicitation agreements and non-compete agreements are prohibited, or just non-competes.

The Pennsylvania house bill is similar to the Vermont bill in that it prohibits all “covenants not to compete,” with the exception of those that arise from the sale of a business or the dissolution of a partnership or limited liability company. However, Pennsylvania’s HB 1938 defines the “covenant not to complete” as an agreement between an employer and an employee that discourages the employee from seeking employment elsewhere.

As a result, non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreements are outside the ban. HB 1938 also includes a clause that relates to judicial recourse and choices of law and venue.

If an employee files a lawsuit against their employer, and wins, the bill includes a provision that allows the employee to recover attorney fees and damages, including punitive damages. HB 1938 does not offer any recommendations for the standards that should be used to determine whether damages should be awarded. In addition, it does not offer guidance on the amount of damages the employee should receive if punitive damages are awarded.

Additional Bill Provisions

HB 1938 also requires all non-compete cases that involve a Pennsylvania resident be decided upon in a Pennsylvania court under Pennsylvania law. This means that the parties involved may not negotiate an alternate venue, or a conflicting choice of law.

In addition, parties may not file in federal court, even if the conditions for federal jurisdiction are met. The only other states that have non-compete bans as broad as Vermont and Pennsylvania propose to enact are California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma.

The last action on this bill was referral to the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s Labor and Industry committee, where it has remained for over a year.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Non-Compete Cases

If you were required to sign a non-compete agreement, and you have questions about how that impacts your employment, it is in your best interest to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will address all of your questions and concerns, including the enforceability of a restrictive covenant. Our skilled legal team 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. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients in Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and across New Jersey.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Proposal Would Impact How Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Are Filed

By ,

In Pennsylvania, if a patient files a medical malpractice lawsuit it must be filed in the county where the harm or injury allegedly occurred. However, a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court proposal would allow patients to file a medical malpractice lawsuit in another county, as long as the party being sued – whether it is the doctor or the hospital – conducted business there.

The proposal by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would eliminate the restriction on where medical liability claims can be filed. It would also allow medical malpractice lawyers to file a claim in a county that is known for awarding higher payoffs, such as Philadelphia County and Allegheny County, a practice known as venue shopping.

The proposal comes at a time when medical malpractice lawsuits in Pennsylvania are down. For example, there were only 224 malpractice cases filed in Allegheny County in 2017, down from an average of 396 cases filed from 2000 to 2002, which is a 43.4 percent decrease. In Philadelphia there were 406 cases filed in 2017, down from an average of 1,204 from 2000 to 2004, which is a decrease of roughly 66 percent.

According to the Supreme Court’s Civil Procedural Rules Committee, the same rules should apply to civil litigation, regardless of the county where the lawsuit is filed. There should not be exceptions for medical malpractice cases.

Philadelphia Medical Malpractice Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with Malpractices Cases in Pennsylvania

If you have been injured while under the care of a healthcare provider, and you are considering pursuing a medical malpractice lawsuit, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will address all of your questions and concerns and secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients across southeastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey and New Jersey.

  Category: Medical Malpractice
  Comments: Comments Off on Pennsylvania Supreme Court Proposal Would Impact How Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Are Filed
  Other posts by

Employee Complaints No Longer a Protected Concerted Activity

By ,

Employees who are unhappy with some aspect of their work conditions often share their frustrations with other employees. A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision made during the Obama administration held that these types of complaints were a protected activity, which meant that employers could not discipline an employee based on complaints made to another employee about work conditions.

However, in January of 2019, the NLRB overturned that decision. As a result, employees who share their complaints with co-workers could face disciplinary action and possible termination.

In a case involving an Alstate Maintenance, LLC, a skycap worker at JFK International Airport was terminated after complaining to his supervisor, in front of several coworkers, about having to transport a soccer team’s equipment. According to the skycap worker, he did not receive a tip from the same team the previous year after he helped the group move their luggage.

The NLRB upheld the Administrative Law Judge’s decision that the termination did not violate the National Labor Relations Act. The employee ultimately carried out his job responsibilities after complaining about it. However, he and three other employees were terminated because of the complaints made about the lack of tips from the previous year.

Protected Versus Not-Protected Activity

According to the Labor Board, the employee’s complaints did not constitute a protected activity. If the complaints were made during an employee meeting, or if the issue that the employee was complaining about impacted all of the employees, the Labor Board may have ruled differently. However, because of the circumstances of the complaint, and that they were made in front of colleagues, the employer’s decision to terminate the skycap was not a violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

In the 2011 Worldmark by Wyndham court decision, the judge held that employee complaints having to do with terms and conditions of employment in a group setting are protected and concerted activity. However, the recent ruling in the Alstate Maintenance, LLC case overruled that decision, which means that any statements made in a meeting, or in a group setting where other employees are present, will not be automatically considered a concerted activity.

If a complaint is related to the terms and conditions of employment, a full investigation should take place before any disciplinary action is taken. An experienced Philadelphia employment lawyer should review the case and recommend the best legal course of action.

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

If your employment has been terminated, or disciplinary action has been taken against you after making complaints about your work conditions, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Offices 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 conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Employee Complaints No Longer a Protected Concerted Activity
  Other posts by

Two Emergency Services Employees File Lawsuit Against Delaware County for Hostile Work Environment

By ,

A federal civil lawsuit has been filed against Delaware County by two former employees with the Delaware County Department of Emergency Services. Both individuals were longtime employees with exemplary records. One of the women worked as an information systems coordinator and the other worked as a 911 coordinator.

The lawsuit alleges that they were sexually harassed by their co-workers, and that there was an abusive and hostile work environment.

Both women were accused of having pornographic images on their computers at work, which resulted in their termination.

Allegations of a Hostile Work Environment

In the lawsuit, which was filed in late November, the women alleged that they were passed over for pay raises and promotions on multiple occasions. In addition, they claimed that a number of female workers were not given permission to use company-owned cars and electronics, or access to reserved parking spots while men were able to take advantage of these perks.

Men were also given more vacation days and were allowed to roll over vacation and sick days, but women had to use these days by a certain date or lose them. Women were also penalized for showing up to work late or leaving early, whereas these rules were not strictly enforced with the men.

The women also alleged that they were humiliated and disrespected at work when male employees left trash on their workspaces and were told that they had to attend meetings with the office manager twice a day for no apparent reason. Both women claimed that the treatment was an act of retaliation in response to them speaking out about the hostile work environment, in addition to waste and fraud.

According to the suit, when one of the women got sick at work she could not leave until she obtained written permission to depart. According to the lawsuit, men could leave without similar permission.

The Firing of the Employees

Prior to termination, police showed up at one women’s home and the other’s office asking them about pornographic images that were found on their work computers. The former employees denied ever seeing these images on their computers.

According to the attorney representing the women, the fact that it was on their computer is another example of the hostile and abusive treatment in the workplace. The attorney representing the county and its employees declined to comment.

The women have filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and are seeking damages for lost wages as a result of their termination.

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

If your employee rights have been violated due to a hostile work environment, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the  Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We handle a wide range of legal matters related to workplace harassment, including sexual harassment and wrongful termination. We will protect your rights and obtain the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout southeastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey and New Jersey.