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

By ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers:  Cyber-hacking and Class Action Lawsuits

By ,

SPG

Recent news coverage has shown a proliferation in cyber-hacks—hackers stealing information about former and current employees including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, employment records, including compensation records, human resources, records, medical information and financial information from both large corporations as well as the Government.

Class action litigation has been initiated as a result of these data breaches. In order for a plaintiff to bring an action as a result of a data breach a plaintiff must have suffered an injury to have standing. That injury must be “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). If identity was “stolen” but has not been used by anyone else, can you still bring a lawsuit? A plaintiff who can prove that a hacker used his information has a much stronger argument than a plaintiff who can allege only an increased risk of identity theft.

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Spokeo v. Robins, 724 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 2014), which could change the injury requirement for a plaintiff trying to bring a lawsuit after their personal information has been hacked. The court will have to decide whether Congress may confer standing on a plaintiff who had not suffered a concrete injury, but rather permit a private right of action based on the violation of a federal statute.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Protect Victims of Cyber-Hacking

Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have the experience to pursue lawsuits for individuals who have had their privacy violated by having their personal information hacked. Our Philadelphia business law firm offers free consultations at our convenient Philadelphia, Pennsylvania location. Call Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or complete our online contact form to see how a Philadelphia business lawyer at our office can help you.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys: Carpenter Awards $3 Million after Stairway Collapse

By ,

SPG

In White v. Drywall, a jury awarded plaintiff, White, $2.5 million for past and future damages, and $500,000 to his wife for loss of consortium after he broke his shoulder on a temporary staircase that collapsed while he was walking on it. White contended that defendant, Beiler Construction LLC, negligently installed the temporary staircase, and that the general contractor was negligent for allowing an unsafe and dangerous condition at the work site.

In January 2012 White was working on a project where defendant, Beiler Construction LLC installed a set of temporary stairs on the work site, and defendant Drywall Inc. was the drywall subcontractor. When White walked down the staircase, he fell to the level below because the staircase gave way. White and other workers had previously reported on numerous occasions that the stairs were unusually wobbly.

White’s doctor said he would have permanent restrictions, and could only use his arm for light duty. White contends that the fall caused radiculopathy in his back and neck, impaired vision, and degeneration in his spine and shoulder, preventing him from playing with his children. The jury found that the two drywall companies and the company that installed the temporary staircase were liable for the incident.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Protect Workers Injured due to Negligent General Contractors

Philadelphia business attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in protecting workers injured by unsafe work conditions and negligent construction companies. Our dedicated team of commercial attorneys in Philadelphia assist clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters, including injuries caused by negligent general contractors. Our highly reputable Philadelphia business law firm is conveniently located in Philadelphia and we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: New Report Released on Trademark Litigation

By ,

SPG

Trademark litigation is a niche area of the legal field, with over 4,000 cases filed last year. Lex Machina, a legal analysis company, recently conducted a comprehensive study on trademark litigation. The report examined all aspects of trademark cases and defined metrics such as number of filings and amounts of damages awarded. The Trademark Litigation Report published findings that since 2009, trademark lawyers have filed nearly 25,000 cases, resulting in over nine billion dollars in damage payments over the course of five years.

The purpose of the study, according to Lex Machina, was to help business attorneys determine effective strategies for all types of trademark litigation cases by quantifying results from past cases. The Trademark Litigation Report is a useful resource for trademark lawyers, especially for its analysis of damage award payouts. The report determined that of the nine billion dollars in damages paid out, more monies have been awarded by juries rather than by judges. Furthermore, most cases are decided through default judgements.

Litigation Cycle of Trademark Cases

The litigation cycle of each type of case was also measured. Certain trademark cases reach an injunction stage much faster than other cases, specifically cases that involve cybersquatting. Copyright cases and patent cases take longer to get to the injunction stage, while cases involving false advertising almost always face a slow, lengthy process during both initial and long-term injunction.

Lex Machina has also conducted reports analyzing patent litigation in several different districts, and the trademark report follows the same patterns by looking at cases in high profile judicial areas such as the Southern District of New York, the Southern District of Florida, the Central District of California and the Northern District of Illinois. These courts deal with major and luxury fashion brands as well as music and film trademark cases.

The Trademark Litigation Report is divided into two sections; the first part of the report defines and analyzes metrics for the past five years of trademark cases, while the second section details how major retailers and brands have been involved in trademark law over the course of the study. Specific companies profiled include BMW, Nike, Chanel and Dunkin’ Donuts, and the report includes information on the overall outcome of each case.

Trademark Lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green help Commercial Clients Avoid and Pursue Litigation When Necessary

At the Pennsylvania business law firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green our trademark lawyers in Philadelphia have experience representing business clients in claims involving commercial contract issues, intellectual property, trademark infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets, among other business law and commercial litigation matters. We provide experienced legal counsel on how to avoid trademark litigation and on how to pursue a trademark violation claim if one is warranted. Contact our Philadelphia trial lawyers today to schedule a consultation by calling 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

Philadelphia Overtime Lawyers: Fracking Water Transportation Falls Under FLSA Overtime Rules

By ,

SPG

Employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) must receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek at a rate of atleast one and a half times their regular rates of pay.

This month, U.S. District Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled in Mazzarella v. Fast Rig Support that truck drivers delivering fracking water to gas drilling rigs within the state are covered by the FLSA and must receive overtime pay in accordance with FLSA guidelines.

After working more than 45 hours a week without receiving overtime pay, the employees of FAST Rig Support, LLC and First Americans Shipping and Trucking Co. filed an FLSA and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act claim earlier this year. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims, arguing that the Motor Carrier Act, which provides exemptions from FLSA regulations, governs work performed by the plaintiffs.

In his ruling, Judge Mannion stated that the plaintiffs effectively pleaded a claim for violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and that “defendants have not shown that the motor carrier exemption applies sufficiently to justify dismissal”. Peter Winebrake, counsel for the more than 40 plaintiffs, believes this ruling represents a significant development that will have a broader impact on labor standards in Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia employment lawyers for FLSA at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green P.C.  represent clients in all matters of employment law including wage and hour disputes, FLSA violations, overtime claims and more.  Our Philadelphia business lawyers are highly skilled in trial litigation and complex negotiations.  Contact Sidkoff, Pincus and Green online or call today at 215-574-0600.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Contract Law

By ,

SPG

In Pennsylvania, courts will look at the “four corners of the document” to determine the intent of the parties when an issue arises with a provision in the contract. Generally, any evidence of previous oral or written negotiations or agreement involving the same subject matter as the contract is almost always inadmissible to explain or vary the terms of the contract. Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425, 436 (Pa. 2004). This is called the parol evidence rule.

In Yocca, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reiterated that one exception to the parol evidence rule is that prior oral or written negotiations or agreements regarding a contract may be introduced to “vary a writing meant to be the parties’ entire contract where a party avers that a term was omitted from the contract because of fraud, accident, or mistake.” Another exception to allow parol evidence is to explain or clarify ambiguous terms of a contract. Id.

Philadelphia contract lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in handing all aspects of business law and commercial litigation. Our dedicated team of commercial contract attorneys in Philadelphia assist clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters, including breach of contract. Call us at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.