Blog(Dev) - Page 35 of 79 - Sidkoff, Pincus & Green

SugarHouse Casino Sued by Gamblers for Unfair Losses

By anthony, 12th July 2019

Recently, two card players filed a lawsuit against SugarHouse HSP Gaming, L.P. and Rush Street Gaming of Chicago after they lost a combined total of close to a quarter of a million dollars at the SugarHouse casino in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that SugarHouse supplied their table with decks of cards that were illegitimate, including decks that had too few cards, too many cards, or decks that had not been properly shuffled. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, which includes the $250,000 in gambling losses, as well as punitive damages and attorney fees.

According to the lawsuit, the two men lost a total of $250,870.18 between the two of them between May 2017 and January 2018. The plaintiffs accused the casino of fraud and failing to provide an honest wagering environment for customers. For example, one casino worker found 16 cards left in an automatic shuffler. Investigators found that the cards were missing from six decks, and those six decks were used in many card games during the previous day, including 46 rounds of blackjack.

A spokesman from SugarHouse released a statement saying that the employees responsible for these infractions have been either disciplined or terminated. In addition, the casino has taken steps to improve the procedures in order to prevent this from happening again.

Other Complaints Against SugarHouse

This is not the first time that SugarHouse has been named in a lawsuit. On July 26, 2018, SugarHouse was fined $100,000 by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board for using broken shuffling machines or dealing cards using illegitimate decks from May 2017 to January 2018. SugarHouse did admit that there were a number of occasions when employees did not properly address the warning lights on the automatic shufflers used at poker, blackjack, and mini-baccarat tables. None of the players involved in these games were reimbursed, and the plaintiff accused the casino of failing to provide a “fair and honest wagering environment.”

While most gamblers understand the odds of winning big are against them, there is a certain thrill in the possibility of beating the house. When illegitimate cards are being used, the house has an unfair advantage over players who are trying to win fair and square.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Represent Victims of Unfair Gambling Conditions

If you experienced an unfair or dishonest environment while participating in poker, blackjack, or any other card game at a casino, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. We will investigate the details of your case and ensure that you receive the financial compensation that you deserve. Protecting your rights is our top priority. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-547-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we assist clients across Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Department of Labor Proposes Update to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s Overtime Rates

By anthony, 10th July 2019

In March 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) suggested an update to the FLSA’s definition of “regular pay” in order to make it easier for employees to calculate employee overtime premiums. This proposal is supported by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) because the changes will provide more clarity in the overtime calculation process, therefore making it easier for employers to offer benefits to their employees without fear of violating any standards.

Currently, the “regular rate” of pay is not clearly defined, and in order to avoid violation of the FLSA standards, employers are not offering certain benefits such as public transportation subsidies, tuition reimbursement, and more. The proposal by the DOL to clarify the meaning of “regular pay” should hopefully decrease uncertainty and encourage employers to offer such benefits without fear of a lawsuit.

As of now, overtime rate must be paid once employees work over 40 hours and that it must be at least 1 ½ times their regular rate. However, overtime rates also must include all payments for employment unless it falls under one of the statutory exceptions. For example, in addition to hourly wages and salaries, the regular rate also includes most bonuses, on-call pay, commissions and more. The DOL’s proposed amendment to the FLSA would clarify that the following benefits are excluded from the regular rate calculation: tuition reimbursement, employer-provided gyms, reimbursed expenses, and more.

Hopefully, once the proposed changes come into effect, employers will offer more benefits to their employees. The proposed changes should, at the very least, create clarity in the FLSA so employees are compensated fairly for their overtime work.

For more information, call our Philadelphia overtime lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

HUP Employee Fired While Recovering from Breast Cancer Treatment

By anthony, 3rd July 2019

The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania has a reputation for being a leading breast cancer treatment center. When an anesthesiology technician who worked at the hospital was diagnosed with breast cancer, she knew that she was in good hands, and that she would receive excellent treatment, which she did. Unfortunately, while the employee was still undergoing chemotherapy and radiation, she was fired from her job, which caused her and her family significant financial hardship and stress.

A mammogram and biopsy confirmed the cancer after the plaintiff found a lump in her breast. Doctors performed a lumpectomy and checked to see if the cancer had spread into the lymph nodes, which it had. As a result, she had to undergo more aggressive treatment, including a mastectomy followed by 16 weeks of weekly chemotherapy, then six weeks of daily radiation. She was able to take a four-month medical leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act so that she could rest and recover from the side effects of treatment.

Plaintiff Fired After Second Request for Medical Leave

After the initial extension of her medical leave, her doctors requested a second extension due to the physical effects of the radiation, including burns, tight skin, and open wounds. The hospital’s Office of Disability Management replied to the request, saying that her department supervisor would determine whether accommodations should be made that would not impose an undue hardship. However, instead of receiving an accommodation, the plaintiff received a termination letter in the mail following a series of unpleasant phone conversations with a representative from the hospital’s personnel department.

According to the plaintiff, at no point did anyone at the hospital ever give any indication that her job was in jeopardy. She had to move in with her mother after exhausting her disability and unemployment benefits, and is now working as a classroom aide in a local school. She filed a lawsuit against the hospital and is seeking financial compensation for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The hospital has since filled her position, and the new hire’s start date was the same day the plaintiff would have returned to work if the second request for a leave of absence had been approved.

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

If your employment was unfairly terminated or your legal rights were compromised in any way, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will conduct a thorough investigation into your case, and the circumstances surrounding your termination. If we determine that your legal rights were violated, we will seek the 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 throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Third Circuit Upholds District Court Ruling Ordering Employees to Pay University of Pittsburgh Medical Center over $300,000 after Withdrawing Lawsuit

By anthony, 1st July 2019

A group of employees sued the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (“UPMC”), alleging that UPMC’s policy of automatically deducting a 30-minute lunch break is a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 753 Fed. Appx. 135 (3rd Cir. 2019). During the course of litigation, the employees demanded UPMC to produce 65 million pages of documentation. UPMC objected, stating that it would be an “enormous cost” to produce that amount of documentation in the allotted timeframe. Nonetheless, UPMC produced the documents as required by the discovery requests.

The employees then withdrew the lawsuit. UPMC filed a bill of costs in District Court, requesting a total of $319,655.80. Of that total amount, $310,000 was for the cost of producing the 65 million documents requested by the employees. The District Court approved the award of costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Section 1920 allows a court to tax “the cost of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.”

The employees moved for review of the award and requested the District Court to reduce or vacate the amount. The District Court denied the employees request, and affirmed the amount requested by UPMC. On appeal, the Third Circuit stated, “. . . the District Court did not abuse its discretion in taxing costs against the Appellants that were also attribute to the unnamed plaintiffs. Appellants voluntarily chose to bring their claims as a class action, and their counsel presumably informed them of the risks of doing so.”

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers for Fair Labor Standards Act in Philadelphia and South Jersey at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court Decision Sparks Anti-Union Lawsuits in PA

By anthony, 27th June 2019

In the case of Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court ruled that public sector unions could not charge public employees for agency fees, even though they are still required to bargain on their behalf. Union supporters argued that the decision would devastate organized labor, compromise their political power, and cause employees to leave their unions. The organizations representing the employees, including the Liberty Justice Center, say that they are simply fighting for the workers’ rights. Since the Janus ruling, at least nine lawsuits have been filed on behalf union workers in Pennsylvania.

In February of 2019, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Southwest Philadelphia employee who works for the State’s Department of Human Services. According to the lawsuit, the Janus decision states that it is illegal for the state to deduct dues from the employee’s paycheck. In addition, the employee should be refunded for the dues she paid, including those paid before the Janus decision, since she did not have the option of not joining the union.

Other Lawsuits Filed Against Unions

Other examples include a lawsuit that was filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on behalf of a bus driver who works for the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District. The bus driver sued his employer and his union for continuing to collect dues from him after the Janus ruling. A class action lawsuit was also filed by a group of teachers who claimed that the Pennsylvania State Education Association illegally collected union fees. The Fairness Center also filed a lawsuit on behalf of workers at Erie Water Works, who alleged poor representation. According to the spokesperson for the Liberty Justice Center, these cases are about protecting workers’ rights.

A representative of a company that tracks anti-union activity said that organizations generally follow a formula, where they find one disgruntled employee and make that person the face of a particular lawsuit. In the past, their campaigns to encourage public-sector employees to drop out of their unions have been ineffective. Only a small percentage of workers in Pennsylvania have left public-sector unions.

The union president of Local 668 in Harrisburg argued that these lawsuits cost the unions a great deal of time and money and distracts from being able to fight for a higher minimum wage and more comprehensive health care for workers.

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

If you have questions about unions and your rights under federal and state employment laws, 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 throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Navient’s Request to Dismiss Lawsuit Denied by District Judge

By anthony, 25th June 2019

Navient Corporation is a student loan servicer based in Delaware. According to a recent lawsuit filed on behalf of students who have been harmed by Navient, the company engaged in abusive practices that were financially harmful to borrowers, costing them billions of dollars. A spokesperson from Navient said that the allegations were unfounded and the company made a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Robert Mariani denied the motion, which means that the case will proceed.

Highlights of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit against Navient includes the following claims:

The company made predatory loans to students who were attending for-profit and non-profit colleges that had graduation rates that were below 50 percent. Navient knew that a high percentage of these students would not be able to repay the loans.
Navient increased its subprime lending, ignoring the fact that the loans would most likely default at very high rates.
Navient urged students to apply for short-term loan forbearances. Unlike loan deferments, the interest continues to accrue and adds to the loan’s principal. This should only be used as a short-term solution for students who are having a temporary problem making payments.

This is not the first lawsuit filed against the company. Three other states have filed lawsuits against Navient as well.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients Harmed by Abusive Loan Practices

If you were financially compromised by a student loan that was recommended to you by a loan officer, it is in your best interest to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will thoroughly examine the loan agreement and recommend the best legal course of action. Protecting your rights and securing the financial compensation you deserve is out top priority. 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 across southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Legal Battle Over $4M Lottery Ticket

By anthony, 13th June 2019

On March 21, 2019, a customer purchased $22 worth of Match 6 Lotto tickets at the ACME supermarket in Doylestown Borough. The tickets were printed out on four sheets of paper with several tickets on each sheet. The man who purchased the tickets returned the sheets of paper, asking that each ticket be printed individually. The returned tickets were set aside. When the winning number was announced later that day, the employee who had printed the unwanted tickets realized that one of the numbers was a winner, so she purchased the tickets and filed a claim for the winnings.

A legal battle ensued after ACME Markets Inc. filed a lawsuit against the employee, arguing that by ringing up the tickets herself, she violated company policy, which states that another employee should have completed the transaction for the tickets. The lawsuit goes on to say that ACME owns the tickets because the lottery does not reimburse stores for unpurchased tickets that were generated by an employee. The lawsuit will determine who deserves the $4.15 million in winnings.

Details of the Lawsuit

According to the lawsuit, once the Acme employee purchased the tickets and filed the claim, the ticket sale was recognized by the Pennsylvania Lottery. As a result, lottery officials were unable to stop processing the payment without a court order. On April 16, a Bucks County judge granted a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the Pennsylvania Lottery, which states that the lottery may not submit any of the winnings to the Acme employee until the legal issues have been resolved. In the meantime, the parties involved have agreed to put the winnings into an escrow account.

The lawyers representing the Acme employee argued that Acme had established a pattern of allowing its employees to purchase “mistake tickets” before a redrawing if the winnings were unclaimed. Their client, who was suspended from her job at Acme, had worked at the store for 20 years. Her legal team plans to move on to pretrial discovery.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees Whose Rights Have Been Violated

If you believe that your legal rights have been violated by your employer, it is in your best interest to contact the Philadelphia business litigation 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 represent clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Pa Superior Court Upholds Verdict Against Greyhound Lines in Crash Lawsuit

By michele, 4th June 2019

On October 9, 2013, a Greyhound bus carrying over 40 passengers rear-ended a slow moving tractor trailer on Interstate 80 in Union County at approximately 1:30 a.m. The bus was travelling from New York City to Cleveland, Ohio. Twenty-one passengers were injured in the accident, and one passenger died after she was thrown from the bus by the force of the impact. The victims were awarded a $15 million verdict after a number of passengers claimed that the bus driver fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into the truck going 67 mph. Greyhound officials argued that the truck driver was traveling at 20 mph below the speed limit and failed to turn on the flashing warning lights when entering the highway. A three-judge Superior Court Panel upheld the verdict.

According to the Superior Court Panel, although witness testimony revealed that the truck driver admitted to being under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident, the statement was not admissible because the witness did not have personal knowledge of the driver’s drug consumption. He could not provide an accurate account of the truck driver’s condition at the time of the accident, nor did he have any additional evidence to support the claim.

Evidence of Drowsy Driving

The Superior Court awarded punitive damages based on driver fatigue, arguing that the bus driver was aware of her own level of fatigue, and that she was in danger of falling asleep at the wheel if she continued driving. The Court found that there was evidence that the bus driver knew that she was supposed to pull over to a rest stop or other safe location if she started to feel drowsy. One of the passengers observed the bus driver drinking a Red Bull as the passengers were boarding the bus, and that she appeared to nod off at various times during the trip.

The Court also rejected Greyhound’s argument that a mistrial should have been declared when a lawyer representing one of the passengers asked a witness if Greyhound had allocated $81 million to pay for claims related to the crash. This was significant because jurors already knew that Greyhound’s assets exceeded its liabilities by $647 million. In recent years, other verdicts were issued against Greyhound. In 2016, $27 million was awarded to a passenger who lost his leg in a bus accident. In another 2016 trial, four passengers were awarded $5 million in damages after a collision.

The Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. handle a wide range of legal matters, including cases involving serious injuries. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, and we represent clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Court Rules in Favor of Temple University Hospital in FMLA Case

By anthony, 30th May 2019

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employer may not harass an employee if he or she needs to take time off to care for a family member. In the case of Hernandez v. Temple University Hospital, the plaintiff claimed that her supervisor violated the FMLA by harassing her for taking frequent days off from work to take care for her daughter, who suffered from asthma. However, regardless of the perceived hostility that the plaintiff felt from her supervisor, all of her requested days off were approved. Ultimately, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated when it was discovered that she violated Temple’s HIPAA policy.

The plaintiff worked as a medical secretary in the hospital’s cardiology department from July 2008 until September 2016. Over the course of her employment, she made numerous requests for time off, including a request for two to three absences per month of up to four hours per episode. Each of these requests were approved. In July 2016, she submitted another request involving more frequent time off in order to take her daughter to multiple medical appointments. While the request for leave was granted, the plaintiff claimed that her supervisor told her that she had to recertify her eligibility for FMLA leave.

The plaintiff went on to say that her supervisor harassed her and questioned the seriousness of her daughter’s illness. She also testified that her supervisor was hostile towards her and increased her workload every time she returned to work after taking leave. The plaintiff argued that her supervisor’s actions violated the FMLA by interfering with her attempt to exercise her rights. In addition, she claimed that her supervisor’s hostility caused her to suffer from extreme stress every time she needed to request time off.

All Requests for Leave Granted

Considering the plaintiff was able to take all the time off that she needed in order to care for her daughter, the Court found that she was unable to prove that she was denied benefits that she was entitled to under the FMLA. In order for the claim to be viable, the plaintiff needed to show that her FMLA rights were withheld, or that her employment was jeopardized by taking leave. The court ruled that the plaintiff did not satisfy the fifth prong of the interference analysis. As a result, she failed to make a prima facie showing of interference.

Ultimately, the plaintiff was terminated because she looked at the medical records of an OB-GYN patient, which is a violation of Temple’s HIPAA policy. The investigation did not involve the plaintiff’s supervisor, who is the only other person to have allegedly been hostile toward the plaintiff. Computer records proved that the plaintiff had, in fact, reviewed the patient’s records, which resulted in her termination.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Clients with Employment Disputes

If your legal rights have been compromised at work, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. will address all of your questions and concerns and 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 are located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Pregnancy Discrimination at Amazon

By anthony, 28th May 2019

Federal and state laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of a number of protected characteristics, including pregnancy. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act mandates that any decisions related to hiring, firing, promotion or demotion, transfer, salary, or benefits cannot be based on an employee’s pregnancy status. Online retailer Amazon has recently come under fire for alleged pregnancy discrimination, facing seven lawsuits in the past eight years.

Amazon is a vast company of more than 600,000 employees that has built its success on productivity. With its guarantee of two-day shipping for Prime customers – recently reduced to one day – the company’s fulfillment centers operate at a fast pace and demand that workers reach high packing quotas. Critics of the company say that this productivity often comes at the expense of employees’ well-being.

Pregnant Workers Penalized for Reduced Productivity

Workers in Amazon’s fulfillment centers often work 10-hour days, most of which is spent on their feet; and they are frequently moving heavy objects. They are typically allotted 30 minutes each shift for non-work tasks, such as going to the restroom. Any additional time could affect an employee’s rate, a metric used to measure their productivity. According to the lawsuits, pregnant employees, who need some accommodations for their condition, were disproportionately affected by these policies.

In the most recent case, an employee at Amazon’s Golden State Fulfillment Center in California was fired two months after informing management that she was pregnant. Her lawsuit alleges that, during those two months, her supervisors chastised her for taking too many bathroom breaks and reducing her productivity. Another employee filed a lawsuit after requesting not to climb ladders or lift boxes over 20 pounds, at the advice of her doctor. Her managers put her on unpaid leave for over a month while they claimed they were trying to accommodate her requests; when she returned, no accommodations had been made, and she was terminated a month later. Two others were fired after taking sick days during their pregnancies.

Amazon released a statement refuting the allegations in the lawsuits, saying that they would not terminate an employee due to pregnancy. The company claims that they accommodate work restrictions for pregnant employees based on their individual needs, and that they do not keep tabs on employees’ bathroom breaks. The statements made in the lawsuits tell a very different story, in which managers stood waiting for employees to return from breaks and rejected doctors’ notes requesting accommodation. Six of the seven lawsuits were settled out of court.

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

Employers are required by law to make reasonable accommodations for workers’ medical conditions, including pregnancy. If you have been subjected to pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, call the law offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will thoroughly review the facts of your case and work to ensure that your rights are protected. With offices located in Center City, Philadelphia, we represent victims of workplace discrimination throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to discuss your case with a Philadelphia employment lawyer.

Newer
1
…
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
…
79
Older

1101 Market Street Suite 2700, Philadelphia, PA 19107