Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers: Bob Evans Facing Overtime Claims

By ,

Bob Evans Farms may be required to pay as much as $20 million in back overtime pay to assistant managers as the result of three wage and hour lawsuits filed against the restaurant chain.  Bob Evans assistant managers claim that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by forcing them to work upwards of 45-50 hours per week at a flat salary while performing the same duties as hourly employees.

In the first class-action lawsuit, filed in 2012 by David Snodgrass, a judge ruled that any overtime awarded to the plaintiffs would be paid at one and a half times an employee’s hourly rate for all time exceeding 40 hours per week.  According to Bob Evans Farms’ annual report, if the other two cases are decided in favor of the plaintiffs, the company could owe close to $20 million.  This would be a huge financial blow to Bob Evans, which lost nine million dollars last quarter and was forced to cut more than 60 headquarters positions.

The FLSA determines whether or not employees are eligible for overtime pay.  Employees in supervisory roles may be improperly classified as exempt from overtime if their managerial responsibilities are only a minimal part of their job.  Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green routinely represent clients in FLSA and overtime disputes.  For professional, effective legal representation in Philadelphia, submit an online contact form or call our Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600.

Thirty-Three Women Sue Ford for Sexual Harassment

By ,

A sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Ford Motor Company has come to include 33 women who claim to have been victimized while working at two Chicago – area plants. Employees at Ford’s Assembly Plant and Stamping Plant allege that they were subject to a hostile work environment that included instances of attempted rape, unwanted sexual advances, touching, groping, and men exposing or showing pictures of their genitals.

The federal suit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, states that, “Ford is aware of the ongoing discrimination and harassment which occurs on a daily basis in an open manner, such that it is observed by employees and supervisors, and has turned a blind eye toward it.”

The plaintiffs claim that complaints to Ford management were met with more harassment, discrimination, and retaliation – alleging that women who dared to speak up were written up or threatened with termination. “Ford knowingly allowed sexual harassers, molesters, and sex offenders to remain in the workplace and repeat heinous acts of sexual harassment”, they say. The suit includes a description of a “pattern and practice of discrimination” that included male employees receiving days off and overtime pay they had not earned, while women were never granted such privileges.

Ford’s attorney Eugene Scalia, son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, has asked the court to dismiss the case on a wide range of grounds. In a motion to dismiss, the motor company’s legal team wrote, “Ford cannot be held vicariously liable for acts outside the scope of managers’ and supervisors’ employment; the claims are preempted by the Illinois Workers Compensation Act; and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are preempted by the Illinois Human Rights Act.”

Ford Motors is no stranger to sexual harassment lawsuits. In 2000, they settled a similar suit filed by 14 female employees for $19.5 million. If the Chicago plaintiffs can successfully establish their claims for discrimination and retaliation, it is likely that Ford will be required to pay a far greater sum.

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

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Disparaging Trademarks

By ,

Trademarks are a business asset that help identify a business. Most trademarks promote the business in a positive light. Some trademarks are contested because they are too close to another trademark. Other trademarks can be considered offensive. Trademark applications and contests over trademarks are decided by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB.)

Constitutional Law vs. Trademark Law

The USPTO and TTAB currently decide if a trademark is disparaging based on whether the trademark refers to an identifiable group and whether a substantial part of that group considers the trademark to be offensive. Factors used to decide whether trademarks are disparaging are how a dictionary defines the key words, as well as how and where the trademark will appear.

Offensive or disparaging trademarks raise the issue of whether they are protected by the US Constitution’s Freedom of Speech provision of the First Amendment. Trademark applicants claim that the USPTO and TTAB cannot deny the application even if the trademark is disparaging because the denial violates the First Amendment’s right to free speech. Those who think disparaging trademarks should be denied rely on the federal Lanham Act.

Current Cases

The case of In re McGinley decided the issue in favor of the USPTO and TTAB. The case reasoning was that applicants were still free to use the disparaging words to identify their business – they just could not get an approved trademark for it.

The federal case involving the Asian band relied on In re McGinley to hold that the band could not get a trademark. A dissenting judge in the Asian band case reasoned that it might be time to revisit the In re McGinley decision because recent law has held that commercial speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The federal court overseeing the Asian band case agreed with the dissenting judge and recently decided it would revisit the constitutionality of denying disparaging trademarks.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green handle Intellectual Property Issues

Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus and Green have experience handling intellectual property issues and are knowledgeable in current trademark laws. Our commercial litigation lawyers in Philadelphia have the experience to help businesses overcome the constitutional and legal challenges they often face. Call 215-574-0600 or fill out our online contact form to discuss your intellectual property concerns with an experienced Philadelphia business lawyer today.

Philadelphia Sexual Harassment Lawyers: Wall Street CEO To Pay $18 Million

By ,

A federal jury has awarded $18 million to former Swedish model Hannah Bouveng in a sexual harassment and defamation suit filed against her boss, Benjamin Wey. As the CEO of New York Global Group, a private equity investment firm with an estimated $1 billion in capital, Wey allegedly pressured Bouveng into having sex, fired her after she tried to end the relationship, and then posted defamatory articles about her on his blog TheBlot after being informed of the lawsuit.

The story began in the summer of 2013, when Mr. Wey hired Bouveng as an assistant in New York City after meeting her at a party in the Hamptons. According to his wife, Michaela, Wey rented his new assistant a luxury apartment in the Financial District, explaining that “Ms. Bouveng could be closer to the office, focus on work and bring him more deals”, which would be good for business.

According the $850 million lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court, Mr. Wey began pushing his new assistant to have sex with him, buying her gifts and bringing her on business trips where he would book only a single room. After several awkward encounters where he successfully pressured her into having sex with him, Bouveng attempted to break off the relationship at Wey’s Behest.

In a statement to the jury, Bouveng’s attorney David Ratner stated, “She was debased. She was degraded. She was defiled. He was delighted… He thought he owned her.”

When Bouveng began refusing her boss’s advances, he threatened to fire her. In her testimony, Bouveng stated, ““He said if I didn’t spend more time with him, he would have to start looking for someone else. He said if I didn’t show him tangible love, he was kicking me out by Aug. 1.”Later on, after discovering her with another man, Bouveng claims that Wey fired her, kicked her out of the apartment and threatened to revoke her visa.

Bouveng proceeded to file suit against Wey in July of 2014, but was only met with more harassment. That month, Wey retaliated by posting several defamatory articles on his blog about Bouveng that included her name, picture, description and accusations of her of being a drug addict, sex slave and prostitute. The suit also states that Wey traveled to Stockholm to harass Bouveng and hire private detectives to stalk her months after she was fired from NYG Group.

In June, an eight-person jury awarded Bouveng $2 million in compensatory damages and $16 million in punitive damages for sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation claims.

For more information on sexual harassment or any other employment law matter, contact Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys Explain Breach of Fiduciary Duty

By ,

A fiduciary duty is a legal obligation to have the best interest of another party when making decisions. A lawyer has a fiduciary duty to their client; as does a board member share that same duty to the company’s shareholders. This obligation exists whenever the relationship involves a special dependence on the fiduciary to implement his expertise in acting for the client. The fiduciary must knowingly accept that trust and confidence to exercise his expertise and discretion to act on the client’s behalf. When a legal fiduciary relationship exists, the law prohibits the fiduciary from acting in any manner unfavorable to the interests of the client, including only acting to benefit themselves.

In Sutow v. Family Endowment Partners, two investors sought damages under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The Sutows claimed over $20 million in investments that were recommended by their advisors were negligent and were similar to a Ponzi scheme. The firm had failed to disclose personal interests in some of the companies recommended for investment to the Sutows. One company was considered “technically insolvent” by an expert for the Sutows and another company was behind on loan payments. Other recommendations and expectations of those companies showed a lack of due diligence according to an expert for the Sutows. Although the firm argued that brokers do not owe a fiduciary duty on non-discretionary trades, the arbitrator awarded $48.4 million to the Sutows.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cases

Philadelphia business attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in handing all aspects of business law and commercial litigation. Our dedicated team of trial lawyers in Philadelphia assist clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters, including breach of fiduciary duty. Call 215-574-0600 or fill out our online contact form to discuss your breach of fiduciary duty concerns with an experienced Philadelphia trial lawyer today.

Philadelphia Wrongful Termination Lawyers:  Robertson v. Hunter Panels LLC, Civ. A. No. 2:13-cv-01047 (W.D. Pa 2013)

By ,

In April 2012, plaintiff Sandra Robertson, was terminated from her employment at Hunter Panels LLC, of Smithfield. Robinson claimed that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about harassment and a hostile work environment and for accusing the company of running an “old boys’ club,” after the plant manager repeatedly refused to act on her complaints.  When she first complained, the company sent her to a mandatory anger-management program, although the counselor told her she did not need it. A few months later, Robertson again complained about ongoing harassment, and she was fired for her “management style.”

Robertson sued Hunter Panels and its parent, Carlisle Construction Materials Inc., as joint employers, on claims of gender discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and violations under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Robertson claimed that the company created electronic documents to support her termination only after she complained about harassment.

The jury found that Hunter and Carlisle discriminated against Robertson because of her gender, that they subjected her to a hostile work environment because of her gender, and that they unlawfully retaliated against her when they terminated her employment. Robertson was determined to receive $92,000. The jury further determined that Hunter and Carlisle acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally and state protected rights of Robertson, who was determined to receive $12.5 million in punitive damages.

Philadelphia Wrongful Termination Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Obtain Compensation for Victims of Retaliation in the Workplace

Philadelphia wrongful termination lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green fight for the rights of employees who unjustly lose their jobs as a result of retaliation at work, hostile work environment or workplace discrimination. Our Philadelphia retaliation lawyers have the experience to hold negligent employers accountable for their actions. Call our Center City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania law offices today at 215-574-0600 or complete our online contact form to schedule a consultation today.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Jawbone v. Fitbit Intellectual Property Case

By ,

For many hi-tech companies, their intellectual property is their greatest business asset. In the digital age, it is easy for employees who leave one company to download much of an original company’s trade secrets and other intellectual property and then give it to another company. One such case where that conduct is alleged is the case of Jawbone vs. Fitbit.

The Facts of the Case

The Jawbone v. Fitbit California case involves two companies that provide health care products. The lawsuit was filed in California state court just after Fitbit filed for a public offering. Fitbit is a company that provides technical devices that track and help manage a person’s medical status. Many of Fitbit’s devices are worn to monitor physical activity. The Jawbone Company has shifted its product line from cellphone headsets and wireless speakers, to wearable trackers including a series of successful devices called Up.

Jawbone claims that Fitbit contacted a third of Jawbone employees about working for Fitbit. Some of the Jawbone employees are alleged to have downloaded and given Fitbit valuable Jawbone company information. In one example, the Jawbone complaint alleges that a Jawbone employee knew they were leaving but stayed on at Jawbone just in time to discuss the future business plans of the company and then downloaded the Jawbone company playbook. Another Jawbone employee who left for Fitbit is alleged to have emailed confidential company information to his personal email address, which is against Jawbone company policy.

Fitbit admits that it took company employees from Jawbone, but denies that these employees took Jawbone intellectual property and denies that Fitbit got this information illegally. Fitbit claims that all its innovations come through their own innovation and research.

Although reports reveal that Jawbone has struggled financially, the company claims its financial health is strong and the demand for its products is great. Jawbone seeks financial damages and for Fitbit to be enjoined from using any information obtained from the employees who formerly worked for Jawbone.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus and Green handle Business and Commercial Litigation in Pennsylvania

Philadelphia trial lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have been helping business clients in Philadelphia and nationwide since 1958. Our commercial contract attorneys know how hard individuals and companies work to develop their intellectual property and to protect their trade secrets. We are experienced litigators skilled in filing suit to stop illegal activity, compensate the business that was wronged, and punish the wrongdoer. Call our intellectual property law firm in Philadelphia today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to discuss how business assets can be protected.

Our office is conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania allowing us to handle business matters throughout the Delaware Valley.

Philadelphia Sexual Harassment Lawyers: Verdict Against FedEx For Sexual Harassment

By ,

A federal jury awarded $3.2 million in a sexual harassment suit against Federal Express Corp. — including $2.5 million in punitive damages despite a $300,000 federal cap on damages. Pennsylvania case law bars awards of punitive damages under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Plaintiff, Marion Shaub, was a former FedEx tractor-trailer driver, who claimed she was harassed by her supervisor and co-workers and that the brakes on her truck were sabotaged on five occasions in an attempt to intimidate her.

The jury found in favor of Shaub on her sexual harassment and retaliation claims and concluded that FedEx was liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Shaub was awarded $101,400 in back pay; $290,000 in front pay; $350,000 in compensatory damages for emotional suffering; and $2.5 million in punitive damages, for a total award of $3,241,400.

Although Pennsylvania case law bars awards of punitive damages under the PHRA, they are allowed under Title VII — but cannot exceed the cap. FedEx is likely appeal, to argue that the punitive damages must be reduced by $950,000. EEOC regional attorney Jacqueline McNair said the verdict “sends employers a loud and clear message that sex discrimination and retaliation are simply unacceptable.”

For more information on gender discrimination or sexual harassment in the workplace, call Philadelphia gender discrimination lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.  

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Endo Pharmaceuticals Whistleblower to Receive $33.6 Million

By ,

Endo Pharmaceuticals whistleblower Peggy Ryan has been awarded $33.6 million as a result of the qui tam complaint she filed against the company in 2005. Ryan’s payout constitutes roughly 24% of the federal government’s cut of the $171.9 million settlement Endo agreed to pay for illegally promoting the drug Lidoderm for off-label use.

While the U.S. Government disputes the 24% figure, arguing that she should receive only 19%, U.S. District Judge Robert F. Kelly ruled that Ryan’s “extraordinary” contributions to the near decade-long litigation merited a larger sum. In his memorandum, Judge Kelly noted that Ryan “nurtured the flame at the darkest times when a favorable outcome seemed most remote” and “enabled the government investigatory team to recover evidence which would have otherwise been unobtainable”.

In a statement to the Legal Intelligencer, Peggy Ryan’s attorney wrote, “It is never easy to be a whistleblower, especially when a case goes on for a decade, but Ms. Ryan has remained dedicated to the cause of exposing fraud…We hope Judge Kelly’s decision to grant Ms. Ryan close to the maximum percentage will encourage other individuals with evidence of fraud against the government to come forward.”

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green protect those who expose Fraudulent Government Practices

Qui Tam Lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have extensive experience protecting whistleblowers who have evidence of fraud against the government. Whistleblowers often have information and evidence that would otherwise be unobtainable, however it takes a great deal of courage to come forward. Our Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers understand that disclosing fraudulent behavior puts employees in a vulnerable position. For knowledgeable legal counsel regarding whistleblower actions, call our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania law offices at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an inquiry online.

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Report: Jury Awards Man for Unnecessary Skin Grafts

By ,

Plaintiff, Wismond Brissett, a 45-year-old truck driver, was cooking without wearing a shirt when the cooking grease caught fire. In Brissett v. Watts, Brissett was awarded $3 million for pain and suffering after Dr. David C. Watts failed to meet the standard of care. He performed a skin graft, which caused the plaintiff unnecessary pain and scarring.  He was brought to the hospital and was diagnosed as having first- and second-degree burns on eight percent of his body.

Brissett was referred to Watts and his practice, Plastic & Cosmetic Surgery Institute for the burns, after an initial meeting with his primary care doctor, where Watts diagnosed Brissett as having first-, second- and third-degree burns over 15 to 20% of his body and explained that Brissett needed surgery.

During the surgery, the burns were debrided, and then skin was taken from Brissett’s thigh and grafted to both his forearms and the right side of his chest. The skin graft left Brissett with severe scars and pain. Brissett’s wounds would have healed with only minor scarring if the surgery had not been performed.

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Victims of Unnecessary Skin Grafts

Philadelphia trial lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green offer a wide range of legal counseling to injured victims in Philadelphia. We are available to our clients 24 hours a day. No case is too big or too small. Our Philadelphia trial lawyers have diverse skills and decades of experience in varied legal services. Located in the heart of Center City, Philadelphia we serve clients throughout the Philadelphia area. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.