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

Court Ruling Addresses Attorney-Client Relationships

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia litigation lawyers assist clients with attorney-client privilege issues.In 2011, physician George R. Bousamra sued Excela Health for defamation after a peer-review investigation conducted by the company revealed that Bousamra performed surgical procedures on over 100 patients whose medical condition may not have warranted surgery. Before announcing the investigation, Excela’s general counsel spoke about the investigation with outside counsel to determine the best legal course of action. Excela’s general counsel shared certain information with an outside public relations firm that the company used for crisis management. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that an organization may not disclose privileged information to the general population, or its adversaries.

During the trial, Excela tried to use the attorney-client privilege argument and the attorney work product doctrine to protect the communications from disclosure. However, Bousamra argued that Excela waived any privilege when the company’s general counsel shared information with the outside public relations firm. The Supreme Court held that Excela did waive the attorney-client privilege, but not the attorney work product doctrine when the general counsel forwarded an email to outside counsel.

PA Supreme Court Sets New Standard for Attorney Work Product Doctrine

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court looked closely at the communications that were sent from Excela to outside counsel, and considered them to be attorney work product, but the Court needed to further examine whether Excela gave up those protections when they sent the communications to the public relations firm. The Court set forth a new standard in Pennsylvania for waiver of the attorney work product doctrine by holding that the attorney work product doctrine is only waived by disclosure if the work is disclosed in a way that increases the likelihood that an adversary would obtain it. The Supreme Court returned the case to the trial court to determine whether Excela waived the attorney work product doctrine protections. The trial court has not yet ruled on whether Excela increased the likelihood that Bousamra would have access to Excela’s communications.

The Supreme Court held that Excela waived the attorney-client privilege when it forwarded a privileged email to the third party. The Court agreed that there may be instances when an attorney will need to include a third party on privileged information to provide legal advice. However, the Court found that the purpose of forwarding the communications was not to provide legal advice, but for public relations management. Therefore, the Court found that Excela waived the attorney-client privilege over the otherwise-privileged emails.

The following are important take-aways from the Bousamra v. Excela Health case:

  • Organizations should educate their employees about attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.
  • Be careful about communications that offer legal advice or educate employees about how to identify privileged information.
  • Think twice before sending documents to a third party.
  • Mark all communications that address legal matters as confidential.
  • Third-party individuals receiving communications about legal matters should sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Philadelphia Litigation Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with Attorney-Client Privilege Issues

If you need assistance with a legal matter involving attorney-client privilege, contact the Philadelphia litigation lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We have extensive experience in these types of cases, and we will work tirelessly to protect your rights and your company’s privileged information. To schedule a confidential 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.

New Federal Overtime Rules Make Additional Workers Eligible for Overtime Pay

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia employment lawyers can counsel clients on the new federal overtime rules.The U.S. Department of Labor recently issued a final overtime rule that will have an impact on 1.3 million American workers. These updated overtime regulations will put more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans across the country. However, critics of the rule say that it should include more employees who often work over 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay. Currently, workers making approximately $23,660 per year may receive overtime pay, which falls well below the poverty line for a family of four. Effective January 1, 2020, workers who make an annual salary of up to $35,568 will be eligible for overtime pay. This is the first time in 15 years that changes have been made to overtime regulations.

A proposal was made during the Obama administration that would have raised the minimum salary threshold to approximately $47,000. If this passed, roughly three million additional workers would have been entitled to overtime pay, or a shorter work week. While this appealed to many workers, it did not necessarily benefit workers who were making a higher salary, but who regularly exceeded 40 hours per week. For example, a general manager at Jiffy Lube in Seattle went from making $16 an hour to an annual salary of $52,000 a year. However, due to understaffing, he often worked over 100 hours a week. As a salaried employee, he was not eligible for overtime pay. Given the long hours, his salary was less than what he would have made if he were paid a $16 an hour wage plus overtime.

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

If your employer failed to compensate you for overtime pay, you may be eligible for compensation. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Lloyd Industries Ordered to Pay $1.04 Million to Terminated Employees in Whistleblower Case

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers protect the rights of wrongfully terminated employees.A federal judge recently ordered Lloyd Industries to pay the largest punitive award ever given under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) after two employees were illegally fired for speaking out against unsafe working conditions. The two workers were terminated after an inspection conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). According to the Regional Solicitor, all employees have a right to speak out about work conditions that are unhealthy or unsafe. If they are unfairly retaliated against for exercising those rights, they deserve to be compensated. The court awarded a total of $1,047,399 in lost wages and punitive damages to the two employees.

After a Lloyd Industries employee lost three fingers in a workplace accident, OSHA conducted an on-site investigation. The injured worker was fired shortly after the investigation began. A second employee was terminated for cooperating with OSHA after they identified a number of health and safety violations and began assessing penalties. A jury found that Lloyd Industries and its owner illegally fired the two employees for cooperating with OSHA during the inspection. They awarded $500,000 in punitive damages, which is the largest punitive award under the OSH Act. The court explained that the size of the award sends a strong message that this kind of retaliation with not be tolerated.

The two employees were also awarded $547,399 in front and back pay. Lloyd Industries and its owner were also ordered to post an anti-retaliation notice and refrain from ever violating the Section 11(c) or the OSH Act again. All employees are entitled to a safe and healthy work environment and if these basic rights are violated by an employer, or they are retaliated against for speaking out about poor work conditions, there will be severe consequences.

Also known as the “safety bill of rights,” the OSH Act was created to ensure that all employees in the United States have safe working conditions and that employers provide the necessary training, outreach, education and assistance necessary to maintain a safe work environment. This helps prevent serious work-related injuries and illnesses.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Protect the Rights of Employees Who Have Been Wrongfully Terminated

If you were terminated from you job after speaking out about unsafe working conditions, it is in your best interest to contact the Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. as soon as possible. It takes a great deal of courage to speak out against an employer, but the law protects whistleblowers against unfair retaliation. Our skilled legal team will discuss the details of your case with you and recommend the best legal course of action. To set up a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Jury Grants Couple $8.5 Million in Medical Malpractice Case Against St. Luke’s University Health Network

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyers protect victims of medical negligence.After experiencing abdominal pain and urinary problems, a Germansville man visited St. Luke’s in Allentown for medical treatment. According to the radiologist, a scan of the patient’s abdomen showed kidney stones and other urinary problems. The scan also revealed the possible presence of a tumor. The patient and his wife were awarded $8.5 million in damages after a Lehigh County jury found that two doctors from St. Luke’s University Health Network failed to explain to the patient that the scan showed a possible cancerous tumor in his bladder.

When the patient initially visited St. Luke’s in 2015 for pain in his right side and abdomen and trouble urinating, doctors ordered a scan of his abdomen. In addition to the kidney stones, the scan showed a rounded area of high density in his bladder, which suggested the presence of a tumor. However, none of the doctors who treated him, or any other healthcare provider from St. Luke’s Physician Group, Inc., or St. Luke’s Hospital, Allentown Campus, shared the radiologist’s findings with the patient. The doctors also failed to inform the patient’s primary care physician of the scan results, refer the patient to specialists for further studies, or develop a plan for follow-up treatment.

Impact of Delayed Diagnosis

In 2017, the patient went in for an ultrasound of his bladder, which revealed multiple tumors and bladder cancer. The patient’s bladder and prostate had to be surgically removed. He also had to undergo chemotherapy. If the doctors had communicated the radiologist’s findings earlier, argued the patient, he could have avoided an invasive surgical procedure and grueling chemotherapy. According to the patient’s lawyer, the possible tumor that the 2015 scan revealed was the same cancerous tumor that was found in the 2017 ultrasound. The delayed diagnosis also caused him physical and emotional pain and lowered his life expectancy.

The jury found the healthcare provider who treated the patient in 2015 to be 60 percent responsible for negligence.  The jury ruled an emergency medicine doctor to be 25 percent responsible and determined the patient to be 15 percent responsible. The jury awarded $10 million in total damages, of which the patient and his wife received $8.5 million.

Philadelphia Medical Malpractice Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Protect Victims of Medical Negligence

If you or someone you know has been injured while under the care of a healthcare professional, and you believe negligence was involved, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. We represent clients throughout South Jersey and the greater Philadelphia region.

  Category: Medical Malpractice
  Comments: Comments Off on Jury Grants Couple $8.5 Million in Medical Malpractice Case Against St. Luke’s University Health Network
  Other posts by

Merck Sued Over Rescinded Job Offer

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia employment lawyers handle employment contract disputes.Pharmaceutical giant, Merck, is being sued by a woman who was in the process of being hired by the company. She was given employment information and was offered a job over the phone by a Merck recruiter. After receiving the offer of employment in the mail, she quit her job at Crown Bioscience and made a down payment for a townhouse that was closer to Merck. The offer was later rescinded by Merck because the woman’s temporary visa expires in 2020, which means the company would have to sponsor her during the application process. Although her contract litigation claim of promissory estoppel and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Merck were dismissed, the court granted her leave to amend the negligent misrepresentation complaint.

U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter dismissed the plaintiff’s claim of promissory estoppel on the grounds that at-will employees may not sue for promissory estoppel under Pennsylvania law. The promise of employment was contingent, so it was not actionable for promissory estoppel purposes. The court determined that the claim would have been dismissed, even if the promissory claim was allowed for at-will employment.

Court Allows Plaintiff to Proceed with Misrepresentation Claim

The court disagreed with Merck’s argument that the economic loss doctrine prevents recovery for damages, so the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint. According to the court, it was clear that Merck and the plaintiff were in the process of establishing an employer/employee relationship. The plaintiff was given employment information, which implied a job offer. Companies are aware of the fact that prospective employees use the information provided to decide whether or not to accept the position.

The plaintiff claimed that she assured the Merck recruiter that the company would not have to sponsor her because she was in the United States on a work visa, but the visa expires in May 2020. The employment offer was contingent on proof of identity and eligibility to work in the U.S. She would be required to complete an I-9 form and provide the necessary documentation. After quitting her job at Bioscience, Merck rescinded the offer on the grounds that they would be required to sponsor her in the future.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Employment Contract Disputes

If you believe that your legal rights were violated in an employment dispute, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we assist clients across South Jersey and Pennsylvania.

PA Court Rules in Favor of Employer in Whistleblower Retaliation Case

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia employment lawyers discuss the PA court ruling in favor of the employer in a whistleblower retaliation case.A former employee of GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) alleged that he was wrongfully terminated from his job in retaliation for reporting concerns about potential security threats related to the company’s manufacturing and financial servers. The plaintiff filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the company shortly after he was discharged. GSK responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX Act”) whistleblower retaliation claim. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion for summary judgment due to a lack of evidence to support the claim that the company violated any SEC regulations.

Highlights of the Case

The plaintiff had been with the company for 16 years prior to his termination. He was part of the team responsible for the AS/400 computer operating system. In 2011, he noticed that a co-worker had started using uncapped processors, which impacted the way the processors performed. GSK consumers began complaining about the overall performance of the processors after the uncapped systems were enabled. The plaintiff confronted the colleague, and notified his supervisor, as well as the vice president of enterprise systems and technologies. After he did not get the response he was hoping for, he notified the Global Compliance Office about the issue. Ultimately, he filed a complaint with the CEO of GSK. The plaintiff alleged that the company’s 2013 report to the SEC failed to mention any of the performance or security concerns that had been raised. After an internal investigation, GSK found that the plaintiff’s complaints were unsubstantiated.

In early 2014, GSK announced that only two of the AS/400 positions would remain in-house and that the rest would be outsourced. The plaintiff was encouraged to apply for one of those positions, but he chose not to because the language in the memo he received led him to believe that his employment would depend on the outcome of the investigation. After a number of postponed termination dates, he was told on April 8, 2015 that his position was being eliminated and that his last day of employment would be June 30, 2015.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that GSK disclosed the risks associated with the computer system’s poor performance. The company’s report also noted that the failure to protect important information and sensitive systems could have a negative impact on the company’s financial results. As a result, the court held that anyone with the training and experience that the plaintiff had could not believe that the defendant was in violation of the SOX Act.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for the Rights of Whistleblowers

If you were wrongfully terminated in retaliation for an employment dispute, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.