Philaelphia Business Lawyers: Bad Faith

By ,

Punitive damages and attorneys’ fees may be awarded for Bad Faith claims in Pennsylvania. An insurance company acts in bad faith when it does not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under an insured’s policy and the insurance company knows or recklessly disregards its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim. MGA Ins. Co. v. Bakos, 699 A.2d 751, 754 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). Additionally, the court may award interest on the amount of the claim from the date in which the claim was made in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest plus 3%. Id.

In Bonenberger v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 791 A.2d 378, 379 (Pa. Super. 2002), the Court held that Nationwide acted in bad faith by failing to adequately evaluate Plaintiff’s injuries after a car crash. The Superior Court upheld the Trial Court’s findings that Nationwide “disregarded Plaintiff’s medical records, conducted no independent medical examination, and made no reasonable evaluation based on Plaintiff’s presentment.” For these reasons, the Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s awards for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Philadelphia trial lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers: Overtime Pay Dispute

By ,

Two meat-delivery drivers have filed a class action suit against their employer, alleging they were denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA.) The employer argues that they were not obligated to pay the drivers overtime wages, because they fell into the motor carrier exemption. The defendants brought the case before a New York judge for summary judgment and were subsequently denied the motion, citing issues of fact.

The men worked as delivery drivers for a New York-based meat distribution company. Their primary duties were transporting products stored at the New York warehouse for delivery to in-state customers. Many of the products stored at the warehouse were ordered from outside of New York. The most significant fact being argued in the case was whether the men were truly engaged in interstate commerce and therefore fell into the motor carrier exemption for overtime.

Exemptions to FLSA Overtime Rules

Exemptions to the FLSA’s rules on overtime applies to drivers, driver’s helpers, loaders, and mechanics who are within the authority of the Secretary of Transportation and whose duties affect the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate commerce. The interstate commerce requirement is satisfied if the goods being transported within the borders of one state are involved in a practical continuity of movement in the flow of interstate commerce. Simply put, if the company received goods from out of state with a fixed intent that they be transported to a specific customer who had ordered the item, regardless of whether it was stored temporarily intrastate, the motor carrier exemption applies. However, if the final destination of items brought in from out of state is not known at the time of delivery to the warehouse, then the exemption does not apply.

Determining when Intrastate Movement is considered Interstate Movement

An earlier Supreme Court decision created a framework for determining whether intrastate movements are “interstate” for the purposes of the motor carrier exemption. In that case, the court discussed three circumstances when goods were brought from out of state but sold and distributed to customers within the state.

  1. Goods purchased by the wholesaler or distributer upon order of a customer with the definite intention that they be carried at once to the customer.
  2. Goods obtained by the wholesaler or distributer to meet the needs of specific customers in agreement with an understanding, contractual or otherwise, although not for immediate delivery.
  3. Goods are brought to the warehouse in anticipation of customer need, rather than upon prior orders or contracts.

The court held that the goods in the first two categories remain in interstate commerce until the time they are delivered to the retail customers. Goods in the third category, however, can only be considered interstate commerce if there is specific evidence relating a product to a particular customer.

The owner of the meat distribution company presented the court with a list of approximately 100 special orders from out-of-state suppliers to be delivered to specific customers in-state. The judge declared the document inadmissible, on the grounds that it was lacking in sufficient detail including dates and costs, and did not appear to have been made in the normal course of business. Summary judgment was denied and the case will proceed to trial at a later date. Attorneys for the plaintiffs estimate that their clients are owed more than $60,000 in overtime pay from the defendants.

Philadelphia Overtime Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle Overtime Disputes

Philadelphia overtime pay lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are highly skilled business and employment litigators with experience representing employees with overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Call 215-574-0600 today or submit an online contact form to arrange a consultation with one of our qualified Philadelphia overtime dispute lawyers. Our office is located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and we represent clients throughout the Philadelphia and South Jersey regions.

Philadelphia Commercial Lawyers: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

By ,

To establish a breach of fiduciary duty in Pennsylvania, a party must first demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship. A fiduciary relationship exists between two parties when one of them is under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relationship. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874, cmt. a (1979).

The Court in Edelstein & Diamond, L.L.P. v. Orloff, 2005 WL 1648191, at *2 (Pa. Com. Pl. June 29, 2005) held that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a fiduciary relationship with Defendant because it had merely hired Defendant to manage files. A fiduciary relationship must go beyond “mere reliance on a superior skill”, but rather be a relationship characterized by “overmastering influence” on one side and “weakness, dependence, or trust, justifiably reposed” on the other side. Fiduciary relationships are marked by a disparity in power which could give rise to a potential abuse of said power. The Court found no such relationship in this case, as Defendant was not in a position of power over Plaintiff.

For more information, call Philadelphia Commercial Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

 

Philadelphia Business Lawyers Discuss Pop Star’s Win in Passing Off Claim

By ,

Another win for pop-star Rihanna, as a UK Court of Appeals upheld an earlier court’s decision to prohibit a T-shirt maker from the unauthorized use of the singer’s image. The original lawsuit, filed by Rihanna in 2012, claimed that fashion retailer, Topshop, misrepresented the celebrity’s endorsement when it began selling t-shirts bearing her image. The shirts were printed with a photograph of Rihanna taken during a live video shoot for one of her albums. The picture was taken by an independent photographer who licensed its use to Topshop, but the singer never gave her consent. The court decided Topshop’s action amounted to “passing off” – illegally exploiting an unregistered trademark.

Generally, aside from privacy issues, there are few laws in the UK that protect celebrities from having their pictures published without their consent, such as there are in the U.S. Celebrities who wish to control the reproduction of their image must rely on some other cause of action, such as a breach of contract, infringement of copyright or, as in Rihanna’s case, passing off.

“Passing off” refers to a misrepresentation of endorsement. Topshop had made considerable efforts to emphasize its relationship with certain pop-stars, and with Rihanna in particular. The company created a contest in 2010 where the prize was a personal shopping appointment with Rihanna at Topshop. They also launched a significant publicity campaign around a visit the star made to the store in early 2012. In regard to the unauthorized t-shirts being sold by Topshop, Rihanna argued that buyers were likely to believe that the product was endorsed by her, and would purchase the shirt based on that false belief. Moreover, she argued that this would be damaging to her goodwill.

Throughout the world, Rihanna is regarded as a fashion icon. Her fashion activities include promoting Gucci and Armani clothing and designing clothes and endorsing products for River Island, as well as some previously authorized goods sold by Topshop. Rihanna’s reputation as a musical artist and style leader has earned her goodwill rights in not only the music industry, but in the fashion world as well. She argued that damage to her goodwill would lead to a decline in sales in her marketing business, and a loss of control over her reputation in the fashion industry. The court agreed and banned Topshop from selling the shirts without informing prospective buyers that the product had not been approved or authorized.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Cases of Intellectual Property and Trademark Infringement

Philadelphia commercial business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have experience handling complex litigation involving rights of publicity, as well as copyright and trademark disputes. Our office is located in Philadelphia and we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. To discuss your case with one of our highly qualified Philadelphia business lawyers, call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: OSHA’s Enforcement of Whistleblower Protection Laws

By ,

Earlier this month, OSHA secured an injunction in a whistleblower case that prevents the Lear Corporation – a Michigan-based auto parts company – from any further retaliation against whistleblower, Kimberly King. This injunction is significant in that it protects Ms. King, and other whistleblowers, from speaking out against the company, including disclosures to media outlets.

Kimberly King worked at the Renosol Seating plant in Selma, Alabama, which is owned by the Lear Corporation. The plant produces foam cushions that are used in car seats. When King’s health began to deteriorate, she began to question the effects of her exposure to a chemical called toluene diisocyanate, or TDI. Since she started working at the plant in 2004, King has developed asthma, and often gets winded from walking up one flight of stairs. Although Lear reported that TDI levels were within legal limits, King remained unconvinced and shared her concerns with the media.

King told her story to NBC.com, who released an article discussing the correlation between TDI, and other workplace chemicals, and respiratory conditions like asthma. A consulting physician concluded that the levels of TDI antibodies in King’s blood placed her in the top 25%. According an occupational health specialist at the University Of Cincinnati College Of Medicine, workers can become sensitized when exposed to these chemicals. As a result, exposure to even small amounts of TDI can cause health issues like asthma and other respiratory conditions.

Lear suspended King from work without pay after she and another employee participated in a YouTube video accusing Lear of exposing employees to dangerous levels of TDI. After King continued to voice her concerns, Lear terminated her employment and sued her for defamation and interference with business relations.

After an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled in King’s favor, declaring that her participation in the YouTube video and her comments to the press and OSHA were considered protected activity. In addition, the judge ordered the Lear Corporation to halt any retaliatory action against King, or any other former or current employee.

The court’s ruling in this case asserts that the public deserves a safe and healthy workplace, and those who speak up about perceived dangers should be protected by the law. Moreover, the outcome of this case may help prevent future retaliation against whistleblowers.

Philadelphia Retaliation Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Protect the Rights of Whistleblowers

If you believe you have a whistleblower claim, contact the experienced Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green. Our team of will work tirelessly to protect your rights and reach a favorable financial settlement. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, our business lawyers represent clients throughout the Delaware Valley. Call the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 to schedule your free consultation or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Volkswagen Chairman Resigns Amid Shareholder Dispute

By ,

Ferdinand Piech, chairman of the board of Volkswagen AG, ended a 20 year reign at Europe’s largest automaker when he stepped down after a public dispute with other board members. His wife, Ursula Piech, also stepped down from her position on the board. The move was made shortly after Piech failed to draw shareholder support regarding his criticism of CEO, Martin Winterkorn.

Piech served as Volkswagen CEO from 1993 to 2002 and is credited for bringing the automaker back from the brink in the 1990s and transforming it into a global powerhouse that rivals GM and Toyota. Since the time Piech came into power, the company successfully acquired sports-car and luxury brands Porsche, Lamborghini and Bentley; new brands such as Czech car maker Skoda; Ducati motorcycles; as well as MAN and Scania heavy trucks.

A shareholder dispute began last month when Piech publicly challenged the authority of current CEO Martin Winterkorn and dismissed him as a potential successor as chairman. The other board members pushed back, stating that Winterkorn was the best possible chief executive for Volkswagen. Piech has not explained the reasoning behind his attack on Winterkorn. The two had worked closely together for decades.

Winterkorn, who ranks # 58 on Forbes list of the world’s most powerful people, is said to have led the company to record profits since becoming CEO in 2007. Members of Volkswagen executive committee are supportive of Winterkorn’s continued role as CEO and have even suggested extending his contract beyond the end of 2016.

Analysts generally agree that Piech’s departure could be a plus for the company, whose core brand has struggled to keep costs down and gain market share in the United States. In combination with his highly successful career with Volkswagen, Piech was recognized as having a volatile and ruthless management style. Despite his resignation, Piech is still a major shareholder in Volkswagen and can exercise his influence through his stake as well as through the family holding structure, which has rules in place to prevent the sale of public stock.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Handle all Aspects of Business Law in Pennsylvania

Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced negotiators, mediators, and litigators in all aspects of business law. Our highly reputable law firm regularly assists clients in cases involving contract negotiations, shareholder disputes, breach of fiduciary duty, and other complex litigation matters. Our business law firm is located in Philadelphia and represents clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

Philadelphia Overtime Dispute Lawyers:  $1.25 Million Settlement for Overtime Dispute

By ,

A settlement was reached in a class action suit involving a claim under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), after both sides reached a deal through mediation.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia R. Eddy of the Western District of Pennsylvania.  A fairness hearing is scheduled to take place later in 2015.

In late 2014, two employees brought a claim against the ROC Service Company, alleging that the employer did not pay them for hours they worked as flowback hands, testing wells at fracking sites in Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs’ attorneys brought the suit under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which classifies the manual labor job duties as non-exempt work and therefore eligible for overtime.  The workers argued that because their jobs are non-exempt under the FLSA, overtime is due and payable under the Act.

ROC Service Company is based in Texas and has operations in several other states.  The two employees assert that they and other employees routinely worked 80 hour workweeks without being paid for overtime hours. This putative class of workers was scheduled to work 84 hours per week, and often worked more hours than that, only to be denied overtime pay. Instead, the ROC Service Company paid them a salary with a per diem and day bonus.  Workers were denied any pay for any hours worked over 40 hours per week.

The settlement fund includes costs, attorney fees and enhanced payments for the two lead plaintiffs.  The other plaintiffs who do not opt out of the settlement and who submit claim forms will be paid proportionally according to how much overtime they worked.

Philadelphia Overtime Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Fight to get Workers the Pay they Deserve

If you or someone you know has been the victim of unfair overtime pay practices, Philadelphia FLSA lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help you get the pay that is rightfully yours.  Our Philadelphia overtime lawyers will help you understand your rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and assist you in getting your fair wage and overtime pay.  Our firm serves clients in the Greater Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and South Jersey regions.  Call us at 215-574-0600 or use our convenient online contact form.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Philadelphia New Employee Sick Leave Ordinance

By ,

On May 13, 2015 the Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) took effect in Philadelphia.  The Ordinance, which was signed into law by Mayor Nutter on February 12th, mandates that employers provide paid and unpaid sick leave to eligible employees in Philadelphia. The Ordinance does not apply to employers with fewer than ten employees.

Under the new regulations, full-time and part-time employees in Philadelphia who work a minimum of 40 hours per year will accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked, not to exceed 40 hours of paid sick leave over a period of one year.  Employees in Philadelphia who work fewer than 40 hours per year will accrue unpaid sick leave at the same rate.  Employers in Philadelphia are not required to provide paid sick time to independent contractors, seasonal workers, adjunct professors, employees hired for a term of less than six months, interns, pool employees, state and federal employees, and employees covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.

Employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) will be presumed to work 40 hours in each workweek, unless their normal workweek is less than 40 hours, in which case sick time accrues based upon their normal work schedule.

The full text of the Ordinance can be obtained online from the city of Philadelphia’s government website.

Philadelphia FLSA lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green provide legal counsel and representation to businesses and individuals in the Philadelphia area. Our Philadelphia business lawyers are well-versed in all aspects of employment law.  Sidkoff, Pincus & Green has been successfully representing clients in business litigation and contract negotiations for over 50 years.  Contact us online or call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers: Staples Class Action FLSA Lawsuit

By ,

A former Staples delivery driver has filed a class action lawsuit against the giant office supply retailer on behalf of himself and all Staples delivery drivers.  The plaintiff claims that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying delivery drivers for overtime incurred while drivers waited for their trucks to be loaded.  According to the plaintiff, Staples delivery drivers were required to report for work at a designated time, then would have to wait for their trucks to be loaded before beginning their shifts.

A driver’s wait time while his or her truck is loaded varies from about ten minutes to one hour. Allegedly, Staples did not pay drivers for time spent waiting for the truck to be loaded, regardless of when the employees were required to report to work. The plaintiff, a Staples delivery driver from June 2006 through January 2015, claims that employers must compensate employees for the entire time that the employee is required to be present at a jobsite.  The allegations assert that Staples failed to ensure that its routine delivery driver payment practices were in compliance with the FLSA.  The lawsuit seeks to recover overtime wages for delivery drivers employed by Staples during the past three years.

Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green provide aggressive legal representation for clients in employment lawsuits. Contact Sidkoff, Pincus & Green online or call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation with an overtime lawyer in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia Wage and Overtime Lawyers Discuss Pennsylvania Labor Lawsuits Against Walmart

By ,

Two wage-and-hour lawsuits have recently been filed against the retail giant Walmart alleging that assistant store managers in Pennsylvania have not been paid for overtime hours.  U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh denied motions filed by Walmart to dismiss both lawsuits and has allowed discovery to proceed in each case.  Judge Hornak also denied the plaintiffs’ request to consolidate the two suits.

One of the Walmart labor lawsuits, brought by former Walmart assistant manager James Paolicelli under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), was filed in February 2014 as a collective action lawsuit which allows for other Walmart assistant managers who are “similarly situated” to opt-in as plaintiffs via written request.

The other suit was filed under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by former Walmart assistant manager Andrew Swank in August 2013 as a class action lawsuit.  Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, one or more plaintiffs may file a class action lawsuit as a representative of a designated class of people if the class meets the necessary criteria.   All members of the class are included as plaintiffs unless a class member chooses to opt-out.  In this case the designated class is comprised of roughly 1,600 Walmart assistant managers employed in Pennsylvania.

In their motion for dismissal, Walmart’s attorneys claim that the plaintiff failed to assert that Walmart assistant managers throughout the state work more than 40 hours per week; therefore, the lawsuit could not be certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23.  Walmart’s attorneys also argued that Swank could not possibly have knowledge of the wage-and-hour circumstances of over 1,000 assistant managers throughout Pennsylvania.  In a second amended complaint (SAC), the plaintiff claims that Walmart assistant managers throughout Pennsylvania attended training and business meetings at which it was apparent that store operations pertaining to the work of assistant managers were streamlined across the state.  Judge Hornak ruled that since the potential for a viable class could not be discounted, the lawsuit will proceed as a class action through the discovery process.

Philadelphia Wage and Overtime Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Class Action and Collective Action Overtime Lawsuits

Philadelphia wage and overtime lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent clients in employment lawsuits, including wage and hour claims under the FLSA.  Contact Sidkoff, Pincus & Green online or call 215-574-0600.