Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Increased Overtime Eligibility

By ,

SPG

Yesterday, the Obama administration announced it was extending eligibility for millions more employees to receive overtime pay. This has been in an effort to improve the treatment of workers that has garnered a lot of criticism from several business groups. The new regulation, which is to be issued by the Labor Department today, states that those workers who earn a salary less than $47,476 a year are required to receive time-and-a-half of overtime every time they work more than 40 hours in a given week. In 2004, a regulation had been set establishing the threshold at $23,660.

There are many theories on how these new regulations will work out as they come into effect on December 1, 2016. Some believe many workers will receive more pay when they work overtime, but project overtime will lessen. Others believe workers will be given salary increases that are above the cutoff so they will not have to be paid overtime. A third theory is that companies will hire more employees so current employees do not have to work overtime and be paid as such.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has said the new rules touch a core issue for President Obama: having the middle class treated fairly. Additionally, the new rule protects those who financially fall below what is considered middle class. Biden also noted that more than 60 percent of workers were eligible for overtime pay in 1975, whereas today, only seven percent are eligible for the same benefits.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Advocate on Behalf of Workers Denied Overtime Pay

If you qualify for overtime pay but have been denied the time-and-a-half you are owed, our team of Philadelphia employment lawyers will help you file a wage and hour dispute claim. At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we are dedicated to fighting for the rights and interests of workers and can help seek compensation and damages for those who are owed. Contact us online or call 215-574-0100 today to find out how we can help. With offices in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Twitter Employee Seeks to Challenge Non-Solicitation Provision

By ,

SPG

A former female Twitter Inc. engineer, recently sued the social media company for gender bias, claiming that she was denied promotions and forced out of the company because she is a woman. A state judge in San Francisco has tentatively ruled that the ex-employee cannot expand her case to also challenge a contract provision that bars employees leaving the company from recruiting their colleagues. The judge found that these two issues are too disparate to be pursued in the same lawsuit. However, the judge said that the plaintiff may be able to pursue her gender claim as a class action lawsuit, including all female engineers working for Twitter.

By prohibiting the plaintiff in this case from joining the non-solicitation claim, Twitter and other Silicon Valley tech companies are dodging a bullet. According to a law professor at the University of San Diego, these clauses are common in the tech industry, but many question whether they are enforceable in California. The top companies are all vying for key players in a relatively small talent pool. At this point, it is unclear how far these companies can go to prevent the poaching of talent.

This case initially only sought to bring Twitter to justice on the gender bias issues. However, the plaintiff alleges that Twitter threatened her and a former colleague identified as a sympathetic witness with legal action for violating non-solicitation agreements in their contracts. Both now work at the venture capital firm Sutter Hill Ventures.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Handle All Employment-Related Matters

If you have suffered adverse employment action and suspect that your employer may have had a discriminatory intent, we can help. The experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are dedicated to getting justice for victims of discrimination. To discuss your case, call us at 215-574-0100 or contact us online today. With offices located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: Class Action Lawsuit for Alleged Fraud

By ,

SPG

A recent lawsuit alleges that a Concord, California company, Disclosure Source, gave kickback payments to realty firm PMZ in exchange for PMZ secretly using Disclosure Source for natural-hazard reports in home sale transactions. PMZ, located in Modesto, California, is the leading property firm in Stanislaus County and one of the largest real estate companies in the United States. Disclosure Source generates reports detailing whether properties are at risk for damage from floods, forest fires and earthquakes. According to the lawsuit, PMZ concealed the kickbacks by routing clients to what appeared to be another firm, but in reality, was a PMZ shell company.

Three former PMZ clients used PMZ’s services to sell homes in 2009 and 2010. In theory, thousands of PMZ’s former clients (or more) could potentially join this lawsuit. But first, Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Barry Goode, who specializes in complex civil litigation, needs to deem the case worthy of class action status. PMZ is doubtful that this will happen, and believes that it will prevail in the long run, although Judge Goode has denied a preliminary motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was filed on grounds that the claim ran afoul of the four-year statute of limitations, as nearly five years had passed between the underlying incident and the filing of the suit.

In his tentative ruling, Judge Goode stated that when a fiduciary earns secret profits, this can constitute constructive fraud. If the allegations against PMZ are ultimately determined to be true, Judge Goode says there will be ample basis to conclude that the defendants committed fraud. The judge also noted that former clients say that they did not discover the alleged kickback scheme until recently, because the purported conspirators actively concealed their relationship.

However, the case is plagued with troubling standing issues. First, Judge Goode has already released five PMZ agents as defendants from the lawsuit. According to PMZ, none of the plaintiffs used Valley NHD (PMZ’s alleged Shell company) when selling homes.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Have Extensive Experience Litigating Issues of Fraud and Misrepresentation

If your business is facing allegations of fraud or misrepresentation the experienced Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have the experience needed to achieve a successful outcome in your case. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Schedule a consultation today by calling us at 215-574-0600 or by filling out our online contact form.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: Delaware Superior Court Rules on Litigation Financing Issue

By ,

SPG

“Litigation finance” is when a legal claim is used as collateral to obtain financing. In other words, a third party provides a cash advance to a litigant in exchange for a percentage of the judgment or settlement award. If the litigant loses, the third party lender receives nothing and loses their investment. In a recent case in Delaware, a party moved to dismiss a claim on grounds that it was funded by a litigation financer, and that the arrangement constituted unlawful champerty and maintenance. The Delaware Superior Court denied the motion, allowing the claim to move forward and confirming that the use of litigation finance is permissible in Delaware under certain circumstances.

Litigation funding initially began in Australia in 2000, and made its way to the United Kingdom in 2005. In 2006, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC formed a “litigation risk strategies unit,” bringing litigation finance to the United States. Subsequently, several other funders have begun lending money to litigants in the United States, and the numbers of lenders continue to grow.

Under Delaware law, champerty and maintenance are unlawful. “Champerty” is defined as an illegal agreement between a claimholder and a “volunteer” who funds the claim, that the volunteer can collect on the claim (or part of it), if it is successful. “Maintenance” is defined as intermeddling in a lawsuit whereby the intermeddler has no standing, yet they maintain the lawsuit, financially or otherwise. Champerty and maintenance are illegal in Delaware to prevent third parties from encouraging fraudulent or meritless lawsuits.

In this matter, Charge Injection Technologies, Inc. (CIT) sued DuPont in 2007, alleging that DuPont stole proprietary secrets. CIT then entered into a financing agreement with a British financing company, Burford Capital Ltd. to finance the litigation. DuPont moved to dismiss on grounds that the agreement violated Delaware’s prohibition against champerty and maintenance.

The Superior Court, however, found that the financing arrangement was not champertous because CIT remained the sole owner of the claim—Burford was not given the right to maintain any control over the claim. For example, CIT retained the right to settle at any time and for any amount. Further, the Court ruled that Burford was not coercing CIT to pursue a frivolous or unwanted lawsuit. The Court also was persuaded by the fact that the financing agreement allowed the proceeds to be used not only to fund the litigation, but also to cover business expenses. For all of these reasons, the Court found that the arrangement between CIT and Burford was lawful.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Handle Various Types of Commercial Litigation

If you need experienced counsel regarding commercial litigation, call one of the experienced Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. With offices located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Ruling in Tyson Foods Overtime Case

By ,

SPG

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a group of pork processing plant workers, who argued that they were entitled to overtime wages for time spent “donning and doffing” (changing in and out of soiled work clothes). The Court held that statistical evidence could be used to determine overtime wages, because the employer failed to keep proper records. Some have speculated that this will lead to an uptick in litigation because plaintiffs in other class actions may now be able to use statistical evidence to support their cases.

The plaintiffs in this case were 3,344 workers employed in the kill, cut and retrim departments of a Storm Lake, Iowa pork processing plant owned by one of America’s largest meat producers, Tyson Foods, Inc. The employees specifically alleged that Tyson violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law. The workers filed their suit in an Iowa Federal District Court in 2007. The Court certified the class action the following year.

Details of the Trial

At trial, the plaintiffs submitted a study performed by Kenneth Mericle, an industrial relations expert. Mericle had examined how long it took employees to don and doff their work clothes. After examining 744 videotape recordings, Mericle concluded that it took the cut and retrim workers approximately 18 minutes per day to don and doff, while the kill employees spent just over 21 minutes a day changing clothes. After reviewing this evidence, the jury awarded the workers $2.9 million in wages.

Tyson appealed the ruling, but the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found that because Tyson neglected to keep proper records, the representative evidence of the videotapes could be relied upon to estimate the hours that plaintiff employees had actually worked. Although some have expressed concern that allowing class action plaintiffs to rely on representative evidence will overburden the courts, the court limited its ruling to the facts and circumstances presented in this case alone. If future class action plaintiffs wish to rely on representative evidence, they will have to demonstrate that use of statistical methods is fair in their particular circumstance.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green Pursue Compensation for Workers Denied Overtime Pay

Federal and state laws require most employers to pay one and one half times the regular rate (“time and a half”) for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. In Pennsylvania, workers may collect unpaid overtime up to three years after the date the pay was earned.

If you have been denied overtime wages, the experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will fight to get you the compensation you deserve. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Class Action Lawyers: SCOTUS Denies Walmart Appeal

By ,

SPG

In a four-1 ruling earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to review a 2006 jury decision in a class action, wage-and-hour lawsuit filed on behalf of Walmart employees in Pennsylvania.

In 2006, plaintiffs in Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores and Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores were awarded $187.6 million in damages for wage-and-hour violations based on claims that the retail giant failed to properly pay employees for missed rest breaks and off-the-clock work. Walmart sought to have the decision overturned by the Supreme Court, arguing that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient proof of class-wide commonality, only proof of individual claims. Walmart also argued that the determination of liability and damages in the case represented a “trial by formula” that had been disapproved by earlier Supreme Court decisions.

According to the majority opinion, however, liability in this case was not determined by a formula, but by evidence of breach of contract and wage-and-hour violations which were established by Walmart’s employment policies, business records and internal audits. Interest accrued since 2006 brings the current class action award to approximately $244 million.

Philadelphia class action lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have been successfully representing plaintiffs in employment lawsuits for over 50 years. For more information about overtime violation claims and employment law in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: Mark Zuckerberg Settles Contract Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

A real estate developer filed a case against Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook Inc., alleging that Zuckerberg reneged on a promise to help the realtor develop his business in exchange for a discounted price on real estate that would have blocked the view from Zuckerberg’s home.

Initially, Zuckerberg was to buy the rights to purchase a property overlooking his Palo Alto, California home for $1.7 million from developer Mireca Voskerician. Voskerician had asserted that he and Zuckerberg agreed to this discounted price in exchange for a customer list comprised of Silicon Valley’s tech elite after the realtor threatened to build a mansion that would block much of Zuckerberg’s view.  These allegations formed the basis of Voskerician’s contract lawsuit against Zuckerberg for failing to live up to his end of the bargain.

However, it appears the developer’s case began to unravel after Zuckerberg’s lawyers’ allegedly discovered fraudulent bank statements produced by the developer. The developer has allegedly dropped the lawsuit in exchange for a promise that Zuckerberg will not sue him.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Routinely Handle All Types of Contract Matters

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we are known for our detail-oriented approach to contract law. If you have questions about a contract matter, contact one of our experienced Philadelphia commercial contract lawyers at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. With offices located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Contract Lawyers: Arbitration Clauses in Nursing Home Contracts

By ,

SPG

Over the past decade, arbitration clauses have become increasingly common. Look closely at your cellphone service contract, credit card contract or student loan agreement, and you are likely to discover that you have given up your right to seek redress in court in the event of a dispute. Nursing homes have also embraced these clauses. The ethics of mandatory arbitration for nursing home patients is even more questionable than in other contexts, because elderly patients may not be able to understand that they are surrendering this important right.

Recently in Massachusetts, an elderly nursing home patient was murdered by her 97-year-old roommate after a disagreement over moving a nightstand so that the decedent could make her way to the bathroom. The decedent’s son sought to hold the nursing home accountable, only to discover the nursing home contract forced any dispute into private arbitration.

The patient’s son has questioned whether the arbitration process could really be objective. The arbitration firm, who ultimately resolved this dispute, had previously handled over 400 arbitrations for the law firm representing the nursing home. Because the arbitration firm draws such a substantial amount of business from the nursing home, it would appear they might have a reason to resolve cases in their favor. In this case, the firm ruled in the nursing home’s favor, without providing any basis for their ruling. The arbitrator’s “opinion” consisted of a single check mark indicating that the nursing home had not been negligent in its care of the late patient.

Despite these issues, judges have consistently upheld mandatory arbitration clauses, even where the individuals who signed the contracts did not understand what rights they were forfeiting. However, lawmakers are becoming increasingly concerned because the private nature of arbitration proceedings can shield the public from patterns of wrongdoing in nursing homes. Recently, lawmakers in 16 states have urged the federal government to deny Medicaid and Medicare funding to nursing homes that use mandatory arbitration clauses.

In this case, the patient’s son challenged the validity of the arbitration clause in his mother’s nursing home contract on grounds that he signed the admissions papers on her behalf, but did not have the authority to bind her to arbitration. A judge found in his favor. Appeals courts across the country are following suit and throwing out nursing home contracts signed by family members of residents.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Businesses and Individuals in Contract Disputes

If you have a contract dispute, or are being sued for breach of contract, the experienced Philadelphia contract lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Disability Discrimination Award

By ,

SPG

Employee Wins $5.5 Million in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

On December 28, 2011, Plaintiff Albert Gucker, a 61 year old mechanic, was constructively discharged from Defendant, U.S. Steel Corp. Plaintiff had work restrictions regarding lifting and climbing, due to an arthritic knee since 2003.

On that day, Plaintiff underwent a return-to-work exam by a company physician, after returning to work following surgery. The doctor approved him for work with the same restrictions he already had in place. On that same day, Plaintiff was informed by a supervisor that his restrictions would not be tolerated. The following day Plaintiff applied for Social Security disability insurance, and he was determined to be disabled.

Plaintiff alleged that U.S. Steel violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) when he was terminated. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, he had received no complaints or negative reports about his job performance, and there were never any safety issues raised regarding his restrictions.

The jury found that Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability, and he should have received accommodations. The jury further concluded that U.S. Steel terminated Plaintiff based on his disability with the knowledge that it was violating the law, or may have been violating the law.

Following a two-week trial, the jury determined the Plaintiff entitled to receive $5.55 million, including $5 million in punitive damages and $550,000 in compensatory damages.

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

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Whistleblowing Cause of Termination

By ,

SPG

Pennsylvania Plaintiff Fails to Demonstrate that Whistleblowing Caused Her Termination

Although Pennsylvania lacks a common law action for wrongful termination of at-will employees, such employees may have a cause of action in several limited circumstances. For a wrongful termination claim to be viable, the at-will employee must show that the termination violates a clear mandate of public policy.

In the recent Pennsylvania case, Auman v. Family Planning Plus, Plaintiff, an at-will employee of Family Planning Plus accused her employer of terminating her for whistleblowing. Plaintiff made a claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law (“PWL”) – a public policy exception to the at will doctrine. To be successful under the PWL, Plaintiff needed to show both a protected report of wrongdoing and a connection between the report and termination showing cause.

Plaintiff made several allegations of misconduct on the part of her employer and filed complaints against Family Planning Plus.  However, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s accusations did not show concrete facts linking the whistleblowing to her termination. Plaintiff was not specifically directed to not file a report, and the Court found that there was no indication that her whistleblowing caused any adverse action toward Plaintiff. The Court stated that vague and inconclusive circumstantial evidence fails to satisfy this initial burden. If Plaintiff had shown that her whistleblowing negatively affected her career and resulted in her termination, the burden would have shifted to Family Planning Plus to show a separate and legitimate reason for the adverse action suffered by Plaintiff.

For more information on employment law and retaliation matters, call our employment lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.