Employee Complaints No Longer a Protected Concerted Activity

By ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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.

UPS Settles Religious Discrimination Case for $4.9 Million

By ,

SPG

In the largest class religious discrimination settlement in the history of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the United Parcel Service (UPS) has agreed to pay the EEOC $4.9 million to resolve a lawsuit claiming that the company was biased against current and prospective employees who wear beards and long hair for religious reasons.

The lawsuit alleged that the company’s uniform and appearance guidelines that employees are required to follow are biased against certain religious groups.

In addition to refusing to hire individuals who had beards and long hair, UPS failed to provide these employees with the same opportunities as other employees. For example, UPS only allowed employees with religious-related beards and long hair to work in nonsupervisory jobs that did not involve any customer contact. In addition, they were not considered for promotions and were not provided with faith-based work accommodations, according to the EEOC.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that UPS had to establish a $4.4 million claims fund for the workers who brought the case to the EEOC, as well as a class of other claimants that the EEOC has identified.

With the remaining $500,000 of the $4.9 million settlement, a reserve fund must be established for claimants who have not yet been identified by either party. UPS must also revisit its application forms and religious accommodations processes, and make the appropriate changes.

Religious Charges Have Doubled Over the Past Two Decades

According to the executive director for the American Association for Access, Equity, and Diversity, since 1997 the number of religious charges filed with the EEOC has doubled. As a result, she said, their organization will be offering a wide range of training programs that will address racial and ethnic intolerance.

Religious freedom is one of the fundamental rights afforded to all citizens of this country, and it must be protected, a judicial analyst for the religious freedom advocacy group Focus on the Family pointed out.

Employers have a responsibility to make religious accommodations that ensure reasonable accommodations for employees, while making sure that it does not impose an unreasonable hardship on the business, according to a Senior Vice President for the Center for Workplace Compliance.

If wearing a beard or long hair presents a safety issue, it could jeopardize the safety of the worker and pose an undue hardship on the employer. For example, if the business involves the use of machinery that poses a constant risk of a caught-in/between accident.

It is important that employers understand that the EEOC will continue to closely examine decisions related to religious discrimination.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Discrimination Cases

If your religious rights have been violated, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will protect your rights and secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Third Circuit Reverses NLRB’s Determination In Favor of Union Workers

By ,

SPG

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer’s threat and subsequent call to the police regarding union organizers on both public and company property did not violate 29 U.S.C. § 157 Section 8(a)(1). National Labor Relations Board v. ImageFirst Uniform Rental Service., No. 17-3680, 2018 WL 6614237 (3d Cir. December 18, 2018). The case arose from an incident in which ImageFirst, a health care laundry service provider, called the police on union members who were distributing pro-union literature on and near their Columbia, PA facility. The manager called the police and requested the union workers be removed from company property and a grassy area which abutted the road. The union ultimately filed a complaint and alleged that ImageFirst unlawfully interfered with union activities under 29 U.S.C. § 157 Section 8(a)(1). An administrative judge decided the trespassing was too insignificant to warrant a removal of the union members. The NLRB affirmed the decision.

In reversing, the Third Circuit Court found that substantial evidence did not support the finding by the NLRB that ImageFirst’s threat to call the police and the company’s call to the police were motivated solely by a desire to remove the union representatives from the public right-of-way. Rather, the Court concluded that “no reasonable fact finder could have failed to find that ImageFirst’s conduct was motivated by broader concerns over its property interests, implicated by the union representative’s repeated and ongoing forays onto its private property.” Therefore, the company’s concern was reasonable and the Court denied enforcement of the NLRB findings.

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our experienced Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys handle many types of legal matters. If you are interested in having a consultation with one of our attorneys, please call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

  Category: Business Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Third Circuit Reverses NLRB’s Determination In Favor of Union Workers
  Other posts by

Termination One Month After Requesting FMLA Leave Creates Sufficient Casual Link

By ,

SPG

In Ha Long v. Spalding Auto. Inc., the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania—ruling on a motion to dismiss—determined that the plaintiff may proceed on his FMLA retaliation claim against his former employer because there were sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case for FMLA retaliation. No. CV 17-4865, 2018 WL 6244755, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2018). In Ha Long, the plaintiff sued his former employer alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant in 2013 and was diagnosed with thoracic disease and disc disease in September 2015. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff periodically needed to request time off and needed accommodations due to his health conditions. Later, in March 2016, Plaintiff requested FMLA leave to attend to his daughter’s needs, as she was undergoing surgery. Initially, the FMLA request was not approved; however, the employer approved the FMLA leave after Plaintiff contacted his union representative, who contacted the chief operating officer. Then in June 2016, Plaintiff again had to request FMLA leave due to the pain he was experiencing as a result of his medical condition. On July 1, 2016, Defendant approved this request, conditioned upon Plaintiff sending appropriate FMLA documents within fifteen (15) days. Plaintiff allegedly complied with this request, but on August 1, 2016, Defendant terminated Plaintiff claiming the documentation was never received and citing attendance issues.

In order to state a viable claim for FMLA retaliation, the plaintiff here must be able to show that: (1) he engaged in protected employee activity; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected activity. Based on the facts at hand, the Court found that the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in order to defeat a motion to dismiss his FMLA retaliation claim. The Court recognized that the one-month gap between plaintiff requesting FMLA leave and his subsequent termination created a reasonable link that they may be related.

The statutes, regulations, and case law that govern the employer-employee relationship are constantly evolving. If you have questions about a legal situation, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. today to schedule a confidential consultation. We can be reached at 215-574-0600 or by submitting a convenient online contact form.

Dittman v. UPMC Ruling – Pennsylvania’s Economic Loss Doctrine Permits Recovery for “Purely Pecuniary Damages” on Negligence Claims

By ,

SPG

In 2014, a group of employees from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UMPC) filed a class action lawsuit against the organization, claiming that a breach in data compromised sensitive personal employee information, including social security numbers, tax information, and confidential bank account information. The plaintiffs alleged that UMPC failed to adopt the appropriate security measures, which increased the risk of identity theft and other crimes.

In a landmark decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that employers have a legal duty to protect employee information that is stored on internet-accessible computer systems. In addition, by limiting the economic loss doctrine, claimants can sue for economic losses resulting from a failure to protect their personal data.

According to the plaintiffs involved in the Dittman v. UPMC case, as a condition of employment, they were required to provide certain personal information, including Social Security numbers and bank account information. As a result, the plaintiffs argued that UPMC had a duty to protect their information against the threat of identity theft crimes.

The plaintiffs alleged that UPMC breached this duty by failing to implement effective security measures, including encryption programs, firewalls, and adequate authentication protocols. The plaintiffs sought economic damages for losses associated with fraudulent tax returns, as well as the potential risk of identity theft crimes.

Significance of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ruling

The Court’s decision in the Dittman v. UPMC case made the rule of law in Pennsylvania very clear. Employers who collect personal data must take reasonable measures to protect that information. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also adopted a wide interpretation of the economic loss doctrine, and found that employees may recover economic losses in a variety of tort actions. By limiting the economic loss doctrine, claimants can now sue for the economic losses resulting from a failure to protect personal data.

The Court’s decision also reflects the rise in cyberattacks, and the growing need for improved cybersecurity frameworks. The lower court found that employers should not be held responsible for security breaches that were not preventable. However, the PA Supreme Court overturned this argument, because companies are now expected to take advantage of the latest cybersecurity systems that protect confidential employee data.

Because of the expansive interpretation of the economic loss doctrine, defendants will not be able to rely on this line of defense to summarily dismiss negligence claims.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Legal Disputes

If your employer failed to take adequate security measures to protect your personal information against the threat of cyberattacks, contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protecting your rights is our top priority, and we will work tirelessly to 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 throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and across New Jersey.

Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Employer in Wrongful Termination Case

By ,

SPG

A former maintenance mechanic for East Penn Manufacturing Co. filed a lawsuit against the company, claiming that he was wrongfully terminated after allegedly damaging a laptop computer that belonged to the company. The employee attempted to establish a connection between his termination and a previous work-related injury, suggesting that he was discriminated against for the disabling injury. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, there was insufficient evidence to establish a link between his termination and the injury.

After injuring his left knee in a work-related injury in 2012, the plaintiff underwent surgery to fix the problem. He was out of work and on disability leave for approximately eight months. He received Workers’ Compensation benefits during this time. He started to experience pain in the same knee in 2013, and submitted a claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits, but his claim was denied. After undergoing a second surgery in 2014, he was out of work again for several months. When he recovered, he was able to return to his position and collect the same salary.

According to the plaintiff, when he returned to work, he was disciplined for taking too much time off after the second surgery. A personnel director at East Penn scheduled a disciplinary meeting and explained the company’s policy regarding sick days and absences. Several months later, he was accused of throwing an object, which damaged a company-owned laptop. A personnel director confronted him about the incident, but he denied it. He was suspended pending an investigation, and ultimately fired.

The District Court ruled that no reasonable jury would find a link between the plaintiff’s firing and his workplace injury. However, the plaintiff argued that he presented enough evidence to support the claim that he was fired because of his injury, and that the district court set too high a standard for proving a prima facie case.

Earlier this month, the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment. According to the Third Circuit, East Penn had a legitimate reason for terminating the plaintiff, who failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim. The company had a written statement from another East Penn employee who witnessed the plaintiff throw the object that damaged the laptop computer. The Court ruled that summary judgment, based on the lack of causal link, was appropriate.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Wrongful Termination Cases

If you have been wrongfully terminated, or your employee rights have been violated, contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will protect your rights and secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Jury Awards $6M to Teva Executive in Discrimination Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

An executive at Teva Pharmaceuticals was recently awarded $6 million by a federal jury in a discrimination lawsuit. The plaintiff was a senior director for the Israeli-based company and had worked for the company since 2001. He was fired from the company in 2016, when he was 58 years old. He alleged that he was wrongfully terminated because of his age and national origin.

Details of the lawsuit allege that the plaintiff’s supervisor had a history of making anti-American comments. For example, he stated that the United States did a poor job of providing adequate military support to Israel in the conflict with the Middle East. According to the plaintiff, the Israeli supervisors did not provide American employees with information when it was requested, and they told him that hiring decisions were made based on employees’ ages. In addition, the Israeli supervisors regularly requested additional data about American employees.

In response to the perceived unfair treatment, a group of American employees filed a report alleging cultural bias. The plaintiff also stated that the Israeli supervisors micromanaged the American employees. After reviewing the report, the higher-ups at the company terminated the plaintiff for deficient performance, even though he had never received a negative performance review in his tenure with the company.

The company made a request for a summary judgment, but the request was denied as the Pennsylvania federal trial court found that there was enough evidence to send the case to trial. Employers can claim reverse discrimination or prevent a discrimination claim if they can provide accurate reasons for the employment decisions that they made, including detailed documentation for their decision-making process.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Discrimination Cases

If your employee rights have been violated or you have been discriminated against by another employee, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will review the details of your case and recommend the best legal course of action. 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 and New Jersey.

Any Company Registered to Do Business in Pennsylvania Now Subject to Lawsuits

By ,

SPG

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in September that companies that are registered to conduct business in Pennsylvania may now be sued in the Pennsylvania state courts. Murray v. Am. LaFrance, LLC, 2018 Pa. Super. 267 (Pa. Super. 2018).  This includes foreign-based corporations who are registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Murray follows a June 28, 2018 Superior Court decision, Webb-Benjamin, LLC v. International Rug Group, LLC, which also granted personal jurisdiction over foreign-based businesses.

In this context, “foreign corporation” refers to a company that is registered to do business in a different jurisdiction or state than that which it is incorporated in.

The ruling followed a case involving a group of New York firefighters who had experienced hearing loss as a result of excessive occupational noise exposure from fire engine sirens. The firefighters sued Federal Signal Corporation, a foreign corporation registered in Pennsylvania.

In support of its ruling, the Superior Court examined Bors v. Johnson & Johnson, an Eastern District of Pennsylvania case which held that “consent remains a valid form of establishing personal jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania registration statute after Daimler.” Daimler was a 2014 Supreme Court case which held that a normally a foreign corporation must be “at home” in a state before the state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over it. However, the Supreme Court in Daimler did not address whether a business can consent to a state court’s jurisdiction based on the state’s business registration requirements.

The Bors court found that Pennsylvania’s statue informs the registrant about the jurisdictional effect of registering to do business in the state. As a result, by consenting to register, a corporation submits to jurisdiction for all purposes.

Unless and until Murray and Webb-Benjamin are appealed, and a higher court reverses the Superior Court’s rulings, foreign corporations registering to conduct business in Pennsylvania will considered consenting to personal jurisdiction.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Provide Legal Counsel to Pennsylvania Employees

If you intend to file a lawsuit against your employer, who is registered as a foreign corporation, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation today, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in Philadelphia where we represent clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Any Company Registered to Do Business in Pennsylvania Now Subject to Lawsuits
  Other posts by

Supreme Court’s Decision Impacts Employee Rights

By ,

SPG

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority made a ruling that will likely have a considerable impact on employee rights in this country. In the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the court’s 5-4 decision brings attention to the issue of whether a company can require its employees to settle employment disputes through individual arbitration, rather than allowing them to combine their collective efforts to protest complaints including job discrimination, wage and hour disputes, and sexual harassment. The decision, which ruled in favor of employer, Epic Systems Corp., expands on a previous Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to avoid class-action lawsuits by enforcing contracts that require individual arbitration.

In making its decision, the Court had to interpret the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). According to the FAA, federal courts must enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including those that provide for individualized proceedings. The NLRA states that it is illegal for any contract to deny an employee the right to form or participate in labor organizations, to bargain collectively, or to engage in certain activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or “mutual aid and protection.” The court had to decide whether the no-group-arbitration clause provides adequate grounds to prohibit employees from pursuing individual arbitration.

The Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, ignited a debate among the liberal and conservative Justices, particularly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who described the decision as destructive to employee rights because it would prevent employees from unionizing. In his majority opinion, Gorsuch wrote that federal courts were instructed by Congress to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. Gorsuch also commented that Ginsberg’s objections are to policy, and those decisions are made by policymakers in those political branches. Gorsuch acknowledged that the FAA had a saving clause that urged courts to refrain from enforcing arbitration agreements that were illegal. However, the Court ruled that the FAA makes individual arbitration agreements enforceable and that the saving clause does not override the outcome.

Impact of Court’s Decision

There are millions of Americans whose employee contracts require individual arbitration over collective actions. Some argue this decision may allow employers to be less accountable to their employees. They also say it will make employees less likely to voice their concerns due to the high cost and significant amount of time and effort associated with individual arbitration. In her dissenting decision, Justice Ginsburg opined that a Congressional correction was needed in order to overturn the majority decision and protect employees. In addition to wage-related issues, this would also impact how sexual harassment in the workplace would be handled. Others believe that the decision will benefit employees because there will be an added incentive to ensure that there are fair arbitration agreements. In addition, arbitration is typically less costly than pursuing a case in court.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Guide Clients in Employment-Related Disputes

If you have questions about employment contracts, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.