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.

Supreme Court to Decide on Racial Bias Lawsuit Against Comcast

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia business lawyers represent clients facing a racial bias lawsuit.Byron Allen, owner of Entertainment Studios Network (ESN)—an African American-owned media company—filed a discrimination lawsuit against Comcast, alleging that the telecommunications giant refused to carry any of the network’s channels due to racially discriminatory practices. A federal court initially dismissed the claims. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the lawsuit legitimate after Allen appealed the initial decision. Comcast appealed the decision, which ultimately brought the case to the Supreme Court.

According to Allen, Comcast had assured him that his channels were being considered for carriage, and that they were on the “short list” for new channels. However, rather than follow through with that assurance, Comcast moved forward with over 80 lesser-known channels, all of which were owned by caucasians. Comcast characterized the claims as “outlandish” and that the decision to launch the other channels had nothing to do with race.

The key issue that the Supreme Court will be considering is whether there is enough evidence of racial discrimination to allow the lawsuit to proceed. Allen claims that Comcast is in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, which guarantees racial equality in a number of domains, including business. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco opined that ESN only had to prove that discrimination was a motivating factor in Comcast’s decision regarding ESN programming. However, Comcast argued that Congress allowed “motivating factor” discrimination claims under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but purposely did not include a similar provision to Section 1981. ESN countered by arguing that Congress added the provision to Title VII to protect discrimination victims, and that this should not mean Congress planned to limit civil rights claims under Section 1981.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients Alleging Discriminatory Business Practices

If you have questions about what you suspect is racially discriminatory conduct, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Our skilled legal team will thoroughly review your case and determine whether your civil rights have been violated. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients from South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Supreme Court Ruling Calls for Paid Sick Leave for Workers in Pittsburgh

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia employment lawyers advocate for workers’ rights to paid sick leave.For some workers, having to take a sick day means not getting paid. That may simply not be an option for those hard-working employees who are struggling to make ends meet. Instead, they come into work, and run the risk of getting sicker and spreading germs to other employees. Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Pittsburgh must offer guaranteed paid sick leave to workers. While some small businesses and restaurant associations have sued and won in the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that the paid sick leave ordinance gives the city authority to further the cause of disease control and prevention.

Paid Sick Leave Ordinance

In a 4-3 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Pittsburgh’s 2015 ordinance was allowed to stand. The decision will impact the roughly 50,000 lower-income workers who did not have access to paid sick leave. According to the ordinance, employers with 15 or more employees must provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave per year. Employers with up to 14 employees must provide up to 24 hours of paid sick leave per year. It is unclear exactly when this will take effect.

Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto said that the decision will have a significant impact on the men and women who live and work in the city. He went on to say that no worker should be forced to decide between staying home sick and losing a day’s pay or coming to work and risk getting others sick. Prior to the ruling, the home rule charter law did not require Pittsburgh employers to offer paid sick leave. The law states that municipalities should not be responsible for requirements placed on employers or businesses. However, the Supreme court overturned this decision.

Those opposed to the ruling argue that decision is going to be particularly hard on small businesses. However, advocates of paid sick leave argue that, in addition to offering improved benefits to employees, it helps prevent the spread of illness, reduces the cost of healthcare, and ensures that parents will be able to care for sick children or other family members.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Advocate for Workers’ Rights

If you have a wage and hour dispute, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Supreme Court Ruling Calls for Paid Sick Leave for Workers in Pittsburgh
  Other posts by

District Court Judge Orders Status Reports on Arbitration Proceedings Between Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Former Employee

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia employment lawyers assist clients with arbitration proceedings.In 2000, Ritz-Carlton hired the plaintiff as a hotel manager, at which time he received the standard training that all new hires receive. After completing the training, he initially worked as a PBX manager until the position was eliminated. He was then transferred to the accounting department, and eventually became a Banquet Captain, a position which he held for nine years. After he began receiving complaints about his job performance, he was terminated in 2013 at the age of 53. The plaintiff alleged that Ritz-Carlton purposefully wanted to get rid of older workers, and that he was fired because of his age. Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald J. Pappert suspended the case in August of 2018 pending an arbitration session. In April, Judge Pappert ordered both parties to provide regular status updates on the progress of the arbitration proceedings.

Part of Ritz-Carlton’s training involves providing new hires with an Employee Agreement, which the plaintiff and the Assistant Director of Human Resources signed. The Employee Agreement describes the hotel’s three-stage procedure for resolving conflicts in the workplace. The first stage involves attempting to resolve the issue with the worker’s immediate supervisor, division head, or general manager. If a resolution cannot be reached, the employee proceeds to stage two, which involves seeking help through a Peer Review Panel. If a resolution still cannot be reached, the employee moves to stage three which is arbitration. The plaintiff completed this three-stage procedure.

However, instead of proceeding to arbitration, the plaintiff filed a complaint in August of 2017, and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed on the grounds that he agreed to arbitrate the age discrimination claim. The motion was granted and the Court compelled arbitration, while staying the case in the meantime. Judge Pappert cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit precedent in Great W. Mortg. Corp. v. Peacock, saying that any doubts about what issues should be heard in arbitration should be resolved through arbitration.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Seek Justice for Clients in Wrongful Termination Disputes

If you were wrongfully terminated from your job, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. at your earliest convenience. We will review the details of your case and determine whether your legal rights have been violated. 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 New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

  Category: Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on District Court Judge Orders Status Reports on Arbitration Proceedings Between Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Former Employee
  Other posts by

Philadelphia Passes Ordinance that Protects Parking Employees Wrongfully Discharged

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia employment lawyers represent employees who have been wrongfully discharged.Parking lot attendants are generally low-paid positions, with little to no healthcare benefits. In Philadelphia, employers operating parking lots or garages could discharge an employee without demonstrating just cause. Therefore, attendants had no legal recourse if they were fired from their job. However, on June 5, 2019, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney signed a bill that would prohibit parking lot or garage employers from discharging an employee unless he or she is able to demonstrate just cause or a “bona fide economic reason.” This new ordinance—which will impact approximately 1,000 employees—provides low-wage workers with union-like protections.

The “Wrongful Discharge from Parking Employment” ordinance will be included in the Philadelphia Code. Effective September 3, 2019, employers will need to demonstrate just cause to terminate an employee. According to the law, the employer will be required to implement progressive discipline before discharge and may not refer to disciplinary action from more than one year ago. However, the ordinance does allow employers to terminate workers in reverse order of seniority for financial reasons, but employers must provide business records that provide proof of a reduction of revenue or profit. In addition, if a worker is discharged, the employer must provide a written explanation as to the reason for the termination. The ordinance also states that employers may not retaliate against an employee who is simply exercising his or her new legal rights.

Enforcement of the New Law

The Mayor’s Office of Labor will be responsible for enforcing the ordinance and investigating specific cases. In addition to the new protections the ordinance offers parking attendants, it also allows discharged workers and the Philadelphia City Solicitor to file a civil lawsuit against an employer if he or she violated the law in any way. If a terminated employee files a discharge claim, and the case is successful, the employee will be eligible for attorneys’ fees, liquidated damages up to $2,000, and reinstatement, as well as the usual damages associated with a discharge claim. All employers who operate a parking lot, parking garage, or valet service in the city of Philadelphia are strongly urged to thoroughly review their policies and ensure that they are in compliance with the new ordinance.

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

If you were terminated from your job without just cause, it is in your best interest to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. as soon as possible. We will conduct a thorough investigation of your case, including the events leading up to your termination, and determine whether your employer violated employment laws. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients from South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.