Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: CEO Harassment Allegations

By ,

SPG

A former president of an Omnicom ad agency has sued the company’s CEO, Alexei Orlov, claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about Orlov’s harassing behavior. The plaintiff filed suit recently in a Los Angeles court, seeking damages and alleging a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The case echoes another recent ad agency discrimination lawsuit where the chief communications officer of J. Walter Thompson accused the CEO of making racial and sexist slurs.

According to the Omnicon lawsuit, at one time Orlov pressured a young female employee who worked on the company’s Pfizer account to get him free Viagra directly from Pfizer, telling her that he needed the medication because he had a young wife.

The plaintiff also claims that Orlov failed to promote a female employee to the position of managing director because she was “too pretty” and no one would take her seriously.

Allegedly, after the plaintiff complained to Orlov about a drunken male co-worker who made inappropriate comments about a female coworker, Orlov dismissed the complaint because he did not want to see the employee reprimanded.

Orlov also allegedly made anti-Semitic comments to a Jewish employee, saying he was miserly with money because he was Jewish.

The plaintiff claims that after complaining to the agency’s global head of human resources and encouraging other staff members to do so, Orlov sent him a text message asking him why he did not first call him directly before going over his head. Less than a month later, the plaintiff was terminated.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Fight for Victims of Harassment and Retaliation

If you are facing harassment or discrimination at work, there are certain steps you can take to protect your rights. The experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle all types of employment-related claims, including retaliation, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, EEOC claims, wage and hour/overtime violations, and more. If you are being harassed, check your company’s reporting requirements and report your concerns to the party designated to receive complaints. To speak to a qualified lawyer about your case, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers: Truck Drivers FLSA Exception

By ,

SPG

Employer of Truck Drivers Who Transported Water to Hydraulic Fracking Sites Does Not Qualify for FLSA Exception Under MCA

In Mazzarella v. Fast Rig Support, LLC, a group of truck drivers who transported water to and from hydraulic fracking sites brought suit against their employer to recover unpaid overtime wages. No. 15-3116, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9687 (3d Cir. May 23, 2016). The truck drivers asserted that their employer violated the FLSA because they often worked more than 40 hours per week but were only paid overtime when they worked over 45 hours in a week. In response to the truck drivers’ claims for unpaid overtime, the employer argued that they were exempt from the FLSA under the Motor Carrier Act. Under the Motor Carrier Act, employers are exempt from the FLSA if they are engaged in transportation between “a State and a place in another State.” 49 U.S.C. § 13501.

The District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held that the employer had not shown the water and drivers were engaged in a “continuous stream of interstate travel” because the water transported involved in the fracking process becomes contaminated and “substantially modified”, resulting in “two separate commercial transactions,” one “before the water becomes tainted” and one after the fracking process is complete. The Third Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court. The Court stated that the employer did not present sufficient evidence that the truck drivers were involved in a “continuity of movement in interstate commerce.”

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

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: EEOC Guides Employers Dealing with Leave and the ADA

By ,

SPG

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a statement on May 9, 2016 to help guide employers in situations regarding Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The EEOC’s statement was meant largely to clarify when and how leave is to be provided in cases of an employee’s disability under the ADA.

As a general note, employees that request leave under an existing policy within the company should have the same access to leave as all other employees. Even when an employee has used up any paid days of leave or if the employer does not have an existing leave policy, an employee may still be entitled to receive leave as a reasonable accommodation, as long as the leave does not create an undue hardship for the employer.

One of the key points the statement explains is that communication is key once leave is requested by an employee. The EEOC calls this the “interactive process”, which allows the employer to obtain information relative to granting leave that is not covered under an existing leave program. Even after the leave has been granted, communication is still very important to determine return dates and conditions upon return for the employee.

You can access the statement from the EEOC here.

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

Philadelphia Medical Malpractice Lawyers: Statute of Limitations in Survival Actions

By ,

SPG

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Statute of Limitations in Survival Actions

On June 7, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review the Superior Court’s expansion of the statute of limitations applicable to survival actions in medical malpractice cases.

In Dubose v. Quinlan, the Superior Court affirmed judgments entered in a wrongful-death and survival action brought by the administrator of the estate of Elise Dubose. Dubose died while in the care of Willowcrest Nursing Home, after developing severe pressure ulcers that were left untreated.  During her stay at Willowcrest, Mrs. Dubose was malnourished, suffered severe dehydration, pain from bed sores, bone infection, and developed sepsis systemic infection that ultimately lead to organ failure and death in October of 2007. The jury found in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $125,000 on the Wrongful Death Claim and $1,000,000 on the Survival Action.

The defendants argued on appeal that they were entitled to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the Survival Action exceeded the two-year statute of limitations, pursuant to the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (“MCARE) Act. Defendants argued that the statute of limitations began to run in 2005, when Dubose developed the first pressure wound. The plaintiff filed two complaints in August 2009 and September 2009, so therefore the claim would have been barred. However, the Superior Court disagreed, ruling that the statute began to run at the time of death, in October of 2007. Believing that the approach the Superior Court took was far too literal, the defendants then filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court, claiming that the expansion of the statute of limitations was improper.

If the Supreme Court affirms the decision, it would open up more litigation in the medical malpractice field. A plaintiff could bring a survival action suit for an injury caused by another person’s negligence if there were complications that resulted in death, regardless of how many years are between the injury and death.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Employment Protections to Medical Marijuana in Pennsylvania

By ,

SPG

On May 17, 2016, the new Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) took effect, making Pennsylvania the 24th state to legalize medical marijuana, and contains several significant employment related provisions. The Act states that “no employer may discharge, threaten, refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee regarding an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location of privileges solely on the basis of such employee’s status as an individual who is certified to use medical marijuana.” (Emphasis added). Furthermore, the Act states that it does not require an employer to make any accommodation of the use of medical marijuana on the premises of any place of employment. Employers can still discipline employees who are under the influence of medical marijuana at the workplace when the employee’s conduct falls below the standard of care normally accepted for that position. These employment provisions raise questions on how courts will determine what “falling below the standard of care” for that position.

Employers who adhere to a zero tolerance policy and/or an anti-discrimination policy may need to modify them accordingly. The Act strictly limits the list of medical conditions in which medical marijuana is legally permissible, and smoking medical marijuana is still prohibited; the drug can only be dispensed as pills, oil, creams, liquids, and forms that can be vaporized.

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

 

 

 

 

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Lawsuit Alleges Defamatory Billboard

By ,

SPG

Defamation is when an individual makes a defamatory statement about another person that damages that person’s reputation. Libel and slander are both types of defamation, with libel involving a written statement, and slander involving a verbal statement. Defamation, libel, and slander are all relevant issues in business law.

A group of prominent judges, attorneys, and businessmen in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire recently filed a civil lawsuit against mortgage broker Michael Gill, who is running for Governor of New Hampshire, and demanded that he take down an allegedly defamatory billboard that explicitly refers to the professionals as drug dealers and extortionists.

The three men filed a lawsuit against Gill for libel and defamation. The lawsuit alleges that Gill made defamatory statements against the men on a large electronic sign outside Gill’s business, The Mortgage Specialists. The men allege that he has been posting these defamatory signs for years. The signs have drawn public criticism in the area for their use of vulgar language. Further, the men allege that Gill defamed them on the radio and over social media. Gill posts the details of his allegations of corruption on his website, and also purchases radio time for a regularly scheduled radio call-in program where he discusses corruption. The most recently noted sign refers to plaintiffs as “drug dealers” and accuses another of extortion.

Gill has often publicly accused a plaintiff of being arrested years ago for possession of cocaine, citing what he claims is the arrest number for the charge. The plaintiff has maintained that the number cited by Gill comes from 1987, and there is no record of any arrest or conviction. He said he is not sure what the purported arrest number signifies or corresponds to.

A superior court judge was scheduled to hear arguments requesting an injunction to remove the sign and order that Gill cease making defamatory statements while the suit is pending.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Seek Justice for Victims of Libel and Defamation

If someone has made harmful, defamatory statements against you or your business, contact the experienced Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Wal-Mart Retaliation Case

By ,

SPG

Third Circuit Affirms Award of Attorneys’ Fees in Wal-Mart Retaliation Case

A plaintiff does not have to prevail on all of his claims in order to be awarded attorneys’ fees. In Boles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Third Circuit affirmed an award of attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff who succeeded on only one of his claims. No. 15-3128, 2016 WL 2990406 (3d Cir. May 24, 2016). Barry Boles was an employee of Wal-Mart who took unpaid medical leave for several months. Id. at *1. Upon being cleared by his doctor, Boles received a termination letter dated one day after he attempted to come back to work. Id. at *2.

Boles filed a complaint against Wal-Mart alleging retaliation and failure to accommodate based on Wal-Mart’s refusal to grant extended leave in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. Id. Boles’ retaliation claim was successful and the District Court granted his motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. On appeal, Wal-Mart argued that the award of attorneys’ fees should be reduced because Boles only succeeded on one of his claims. Id. at *4. The Third Circuit affirmed the awards of attorneys’ fees because Boles’ claims revolved around the same events, witnesses, and facts, and the work of his attorneys’ could not be separated out by claim. Id. It also affirmed the award because Boles achieved overall success due to being awarded back pay, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages. Id.

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

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Arbitration Decision

By ,

SPG

Arbitration Decision from 7th Circuit Leaves Split Among Appellate Courts

In a recent decision, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a health care software company was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it required its employees to waive their rights to pursue wage-and-hour claims in class actions. In the case, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., Lewis brought a claim in federal court against his employer, Epic Systems, asserting they had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by depriving him and a few fellow employees of overtime pay. No. 15-2997, 2016 WL 3029464 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016). Epic Systems moved to dismiss the claim and compel individual arbitration, in light of an arbitration clause requiring groups of employees to bring any wage-and-hour claims against the company only through individual arbitration and prohibiting collective arbitration or class action. Id.  Lewis claimed the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it violated Section 7 of the NLRA, which states that “employees shall have the right to… engage in…concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. Epic Systems contended that the clause was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Id. Both the district court and the 7th Circuit agreed with Lewis. Id.

This decision directly opposes a decision from the 5th Circuit, leaving a split among the appellate courts and increasing the possibility that the Supreme Court will take up the issue. In 2013, the 5th Circuit overturned a National Labor Relations Board decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., and allowed employers to have these mandatory individual arbitration agreements under the FAA. 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013). This split in decisions will leave a lot of uncertainty, and possibly more lawsuits, for employers not in those circuits who have or want to enforce arbitration agreements and class-action waivers.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Filing Period for Constructive Discharge

By ,

SPG

Filing Period Begins to Run at the Time of Resignation

On May 23, 2016, the Supreme Court decided that for a former employee to bring a constructive discharge claim, the filing period to do so begins once the employee gives his/her resignation notice. In Green v. Brennan, No. 14-613, 2016 WL 2945236 (U.S. May 23, 2016), the plaintiff applied for a promotion, but did not receive the position after being with the USPS since 1983. Id. at *3. Soon after the denial, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging he was denied the promotion because of his race. Id. After the complaint, the plaintiff alleged he was receiving retaliatory treatment from his supervisors, and even accused of delaying the mail, a criminal offense. Id. The plaintiff was investigated for this criminal offense by the Postal Service’s Office of the Inspector General, and ultimately signed an agreement with the USPO. Id. That agreement gave the plaintiff the choice between retiring early or moving to a new location over 100 miles away for a much lower salary, and in return the USPO would not pursue criminal charges. Id. After deciding to resign, the plaintiff contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor to report his complaint 41 days after handing in his resignation paperwork, but 96 days after signing the agreement to resign. Id.

Title VII required a federal employee to consult an EEO counselor within 45 days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory, and this case would then turn based on when the filing time period begins. The Court held that the 45-day clock for a federal employee’s constructive discharge claim begins running once the employee resigns, and more specifically in this case would begin when the employee gave the postal Service his notice of resignation. Id. at *1. The Court came to this conclusion after explaining there must first be a “complete and present cause of action”, and until the employee resigns, there is not a “complete and present cause of action” for constructive discharge. Id.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: FLSA Salary Threshold Raised

By ,

SPG

Beginning December 1, 2016, approximately 4 million Americans will qualify for overtime pay under new rules from the U.S. Department of Labor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Currently, the “white collar” exemption under FLSA for overtime pay requires that employees: (1) be paid on a salary basis, receiving a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed (“salary basis test”); (2) be paid more than a specified salary threshold of $23,660, or $455 a week (“salary level test”); and (3) primarily perform certain executive, administrative, or professional duties as specified in DOL regulations (“duties test”). Now, rule changes influenced by the Obama administration are altering part (2) to increase the salary threshold to $47,476 or $913 a week, but are leaving parts (1) and (3) undisturbed.

The threshold will be automatically updated every three years to keep salaries in line with inflation. Starting in 2020, the threshold will be increased to match the 40th percentile of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census area, which in this case is currently the South. The Department of Labor estimates that in 2020, the salary threshold will increase to approximately $51,000 a year.

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