Philadelphia Overtime Lawyers: The Fair Labor Standards Act

By ,

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) was enacted in 1938 in an effort to regulate the work environment.  The FLSA requires employers to pay employees for all hours worked.  Additionally, if an employee works in excess of forty hours in a workweek, the FLSA requires the employer to pay the employee a rate of at least one and a half times the employee’s regular rate of pay.  However, the FLSA does not apply to all employees; some employees are exempt.  Many states, including Pennsylvania, have laws which parallel the FLSA.

In order to calculate the correct amount of hours an employee worked, it is important to determine what activities constitute “work” and when the workday starts.  This is of particular importance for employees who: work from home, travel, are required to wear protective equipment or clothing, or need to take preliminary steps so that they can perform their job. Employers who violate the FLSA can be liable for damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and criminal penalties.

For more information, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Internet Harassment and Defamation

By ,

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Under both statutory and judge made law, a person cannot be held liable for posting on the Internet a hyperlink to, or repeating a quote authored by another person that was published on a website, regardless of the content; and the immunity from defamation claims afforded such users of the Internet is absolute.  See Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.

In Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33 (2006), the Court ruled that a user of interactive computer services was immune from defamation liability for posting information passed to her by a third-party publisher. In Barrett, Plaintiff sued Defendant for republishing what she considered was a defamatory email onto a third party website. The Supreme Court held that Defendant was a “user” as defined by the Communications Decency Act, and therefore did not re-publish content for the purposes of bringing a defamation claim. Rather, the Supreme Court told Plaintiff that she would have to sue the originator of the defamatory Internet publication.

Further, “subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability [for third-party published content] would tend to chill online speech”. ); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 331–33 (4th Cir. 1997).

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Unemployment Compensation

By ,

Necessitous and Compelling Cause to Leave Job

In WFG National Title Insurance Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, NO. 1268 C.D. 2014, a recent unemployment compensation (“UC”) case, the Commonwealth Court held that an employee had a “necessitous and compelling” cause to voluntarily quit his job due to a substantial and unilateral change to his pay and performance goals.

In WFG National Title Insurance Co., the employee was reassigned to a new supervisor and soon after, filed a complaint with human resources about his former supervisor. Soon after an investigation that ended with no disciplinary for the former supervisor, Employee’s new supervisor changed the way his bonuses would be calculated and set “unachievable expectations.” These changes significantly decreased Employee’s annual pay. Employee then quit his job, and filed for unemployment compensation benefits due to what he believed was retaliatory actions. In upholding the decision, the Court explains that a necessary cause to quit one’s job can exist when the employer has made an unreasonable change and that a considerable reduction in pay occurs.

It is important to note, that the court discussed how fast these actions occurred after the complaint, which signals that time is an important factor in determining if an employee has a cause of action. In WFG National Title Insurance Co., all of these actions occurred within a four (4) week time span.

For more information, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Piercing the Corporate Veil

By ,

In Pennsylvania, a corporation is considered a distinct entity from its shareholders.  Under certain circumstances a court will pierce the corporate veil of a corporation and hold the shareholders personally liable for the corporation’s debts.  A strong presumption against piercing the corporate veil exists in Pennsylvania. However, in limited circumstances the court will allow it.

In Lumax Industries, Inc. v. Aultman, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court articulated factors to consider when determining whether to pierce the corporate veil.  The court should consider whether the corporation is undercapitalized, whether it adheres to the corporate formalities or not, whether substantial commingling of corporate and personal affairs is occurring, and whether the corporation is being used to commit a fraud.  In such circumstances the court may, as a matter of equity, pierce the corporate veil and hold the corporation’s shareholders personally liable for the corporate debt at issue.  However, the party seeking to have the corporate veil pierced has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the veil should be pierced.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Delaware County Physician Negligence Results in Paralysis, Other Physical Ailments

By ,

On August 7, 2015 a jury on found in plaintiff’s favor and against two of the doctors who treated him. The jury has awarded $12.5 million to plaintiff Kenneth Del Grosso who is paralyzed following an alleged delayed diagnosis of a cervical abscess. Del Grosso said he received negligent care, causing his paralysis of the arms and legs, as well as other damages.

Del Grosso arrived at the emergency room with symptoms of left-sided neck pain and tingling in his left arm, according to a pretrial memorandum for the plaintiffs. He was kept at the hospital overnight, where his symptoms worsened and he developed a fever.

Infectious-disease specialist Bonnie Rabinowitch evaluated Del Grosso and found symptoms of a cervical epidural abscess and ordered an MRI. Radiologist Ben-Zion Friedman interpreted the MRI and declared there was no abscess or epidural collection. Del Grosso underwent emergency surgery on a deep cervical abscess the next day, after Rabinowitch expressed ongoing concerns about spinal cord compression. Del Grosso became paralyzed in the arms and legs, and lost bowel, bladder and sexual function.

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of a medical mistake, contact Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Discrimination Lawyers: Philadelphia Ordinance Banning Discrimination

By ,

In June, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the country, following a decade of reforms that have granted more rights to LGBT individuals. However, the federal government has yet to change Title VII discrimination laws to protect LGBT employees. In lieu of federal actions, individual states and cities, including Philadelphia, have taken it upon themselves to protect LGBT workers from employment discrimination based on their gender identity and/or sexual orientation.

Philadelphia Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

Philadelphia law states that “all people are entitled to the full and equal employment opportunities without discrimination or segregation because of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic or sexual violence victim status, ethnicity, familial status, or gender identity.” Overt discrimination, such as denial of employment, is prohibited, as are more subtle forms of discrimination such as requiring different standards for LGBT employees. Additionally, the law applies to all employers, whether they be past employers, current employers or potential employers. Employment agencies and labor unions in Philadelphia must also provide every individual with “fair and equal treatment” under the law.

Philadelphia Discrimination Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Victims of Employment Discrimination

Individuals who believe that they have experienced employment discrimination due to gender identity or sexual orientation should consult with a Philadelphia discrimination lawyer to discuss their litigation options. A skilled discrimination lawyer can help victims understand the law and can manage their claim with the goals of facilitating justice and achieving a positive resolution. Because many laws are still changing, individuals who were discriminated against in the past may now be able to sue their former employers under current anti-discrimination laws.

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our lawyers will fight hard to protect your right to fair employment opportunities. Please call 215-574-0600 or contact us online today to schedule your consultation and discuss your claim.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Abuse of Process – When Parties Submit Frivolous Filings to Delay Litigation and Increase Costs

By ,

The word “process” as used in the tort of abuse of process “has been interpreted broadly, and encompasses the entire range of procedures incident to the litigation process. Rosen v. American Bank of Rolla, 627 A.2d 190, 192-193 (Pa. Super. 1993).

To establish a claim for abuse of process in Pennsylvania it must be shown that the party: (1) used a legal process against the other party, (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed; and (3) harm has been caused to the other party. Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1238 (Pa. Super. 2008). “[C]ourts have consistently held or assumed that plaintiffs asserting a claim under Pennsylvania law for abuse of process that arises out of an underlying civil case need only establish the three common elements described above”. Langman v. Keystone Nat ‘1 Bank & Trust Co., et al, 672 F. Supp.2d 691, 700 (E.D.Pa. 2009). A plaintiff asserting an abuse of process claim does not have to show that the underlying proceedings terminated in his favor. Id., at 701; Lerner, 954 A.2d at 1238.

For more information on abuse of process, contact Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Craigslist Copyright Lawsuit

By ,

A long-standing case between Craigslist and 3taps has finally been resolved. The two companies came to a settlement agreement for one million dollars that Craigslist will be donating to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) over the next decade. Additionally, 3taps will be shutting down.

Trademark Infringement, Unethical Competition and Breach of Contract

Craigslist sued 3taps, as well as another company, PadMapper, in July 2012, claiming that both companies were guilty of copyright infringement. PadMapper took the data Craigslist had for apartment listings and created its own site that was easier to use, while 3taps took other Craigslist postings and published them on third-party websites. In addition to copyright infringement, PadMapper and 3taps were also accused of infringing on the Craigslist trademark, unethically competing with Craigslist and breaching Craigslist contracts.

Countersuit Filed

In late 2012, 3taps filed a countersuit against Craigslist, opening the door to a legal battle that lasted nearly three years. 3taps countered that Craigslist had effectively created a copyright infringement trap by their practice of selectively obtaining copyright assignments and registrations in some user-generated posts, but failing to inform visitors which posts its own.

The recent settlement fully resolves each lawsuit. The one million dollars that 3taps will pay to Craigslist will help support the EFF, which will receive $100,000 a year for 10 years, and 3taps will no longer be allowed to operate.

Copyright Litigation Trap Questions Remain

There is still debate regarding the question of legality for private enterprises which operate public websites and attempt to exclude certain visitors, while at the same time exposing the excluded visitor to civil and criminal liability through use of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Philadelphia Copyright Infringement Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract and Business Litigation Claims

Certain types of small businesses and websites that source their data from other systems may be exposed to the potential of being targeted in lawsuits filed by the original source company or website. If you are being sued over copyright infringement or are considering filing a lawsuit of your own, our Philadelphia litigation lawyers can help. We can consult on how to avoid trademark litigation and offer legal counsel on how to pursue a trademark violation claim if one is warranted. At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we are skilled in breach of contract and copyright infringement litigation and will pursue your case until we reach a viable outcome or settlement. Please call 215-574-0600 or fill out an online contact form today to schedule your consultation.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers : Significant Trademark Ruling in 9th Circuit

By ,

Amazon, the online marketplace giant, recently lost an important court case. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the company will be subject to an ongoing trademark lawsuit, which was instigated by Amazon’s publishing of competitors’ list prices. A lower court originally ruled in Amazon’s favor in the case.

Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com involves Multi Time Machine (MTM), a watchmaking company that filed suit against Amazon for “confusing search results.” Consumers who search for “MTM Special Ops” on Amazon do not actually see the MTM product they are searching for because Amazon does not sell the product. Instead, the search engine provides a list of competitors’ watches that are sold by Amazon. Consumers may be aware the product they are trying to purchase does not come from MTM, but could also think they are purchasing an MTM product since the search results page displays “MTM Special Ops” at the top of the page.

Ruling Not an Automatic Victory

The ruling does not automatically grant MTM a trademark victory. The case will return to court wherein MTM must prove that Amazon intentionally caused this confusion. A judge from the majority ruling said that a jury should have the opportunity to make the final decision. “A jury could infer that users who are confused by the search results will wonder whether a competitor has acquired MTM or is otherwise affiliated with or approved by MTM,” he said.

A dissenting judge disagreed saying that online consumers are knowledgeable enough to understand the difference. He equated the search engine results to a waitress offering a diner Pepsi because it does not serve Coca Cola.

Philadelphia Trademark Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Trademark Infringement Claims

As technology continues to evolve, laws must also be changed to keep up with technology’s fast pace. Across the nation, trademark law is in flux. If you think that an individual or company has violated your trademark or marketed your product in violation of fair trade laws, contact a Philadelphia trademark lawyer at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today. Please call 215-574-0600 or contact us online to schedule your consultation.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers discuss Contra Proferentem: Ambiguity in Contract Construed Against Drafter

By ,

“Contra proferentem” or “against the offeror” is a legal principal used by Courts in Pennsylvania when parties dispute contractual language. A written instrument is ambiguous if it is reasonably or fairly susceptible of more than one construction. When a contract is ambiguous, it is undisputed that the rule of contra proferentem requires the language to be construed against the drafter and in favor of the other party if the latter’s interpretation is reasonable. Com., State Pub. Sch. Bldg. Auth. v. Noble C. Quandel Co., 585 A.2d 1136, 1144 (1991)

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Public School Building Authority, the Court ruled in favor of Defendant because “a government contract will be construed against the government where, as here, the contractual provision in question is ambiguous and unreasonable, we conclude that the Authority’s interpretation of Paragraph 75 is erroneous and that Quandel must prevail.” Id.

For more information, call Philadelphia contract lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.