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.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers: FLSA Exemption Does Not Apply to Car Dealership Service Advisers

By ,

In a recent plaintiff victory, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that service advisers who give repair estimates in car dealerships are eligible to collect overtime pay under federal labor laws.  Circuit Judge Susan Graber ruled that the overtime exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which applies to “any salesman, parts man, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles,” does not apply to service advisers.  Service advisers sell services for cars, but they do not sell cars or parts, or perform mechanical work on cars.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit includes the District of Alaska, Arizona, the Central District of California, the Eastern District of California, the Northern District of California, the Southern District of California, the District of Hawaii, the District of Idaho, the District of Montana, the District of Nevada, the District of Oregon, the Eastern District of Washington, and the Western District of Washington.

Philadelphia overtime lawyers at the law offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green strive to provide each client with superior legal representation worthy of our exemplary reputation.  Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have been serving clients in Philadelphia for over 50 years.  We are one of the oldest and most respected business and employment law firms in Philadelphia.  Our areas of experience include employment law, contract law, FLSA and unpaid overtime charges, Constitutional law, class actions, civil rights, and more.  Contact Sidkoff, Pincus & Green online, or call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation with one of our highly skilled Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers.

Philadelphia Overtime Lawyers Report on Recent New Jersey Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit

By ,

A New Jersey employee enjoyed a recent court victory when she was awarded overtime which her employer originally denied.  In August, 2011, Ashley McMaster filed a wage-and-hour lawsuit against her employer, Eastern Armored Services Inc., claiming that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by improperly classifying her as ineligible for overtime pay under the Motor Carrier Act Exemption of the FLSA.

In her lawsuit, McMaster claimed that she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not paid more than her standard hourly rate for overtime hours.   In March, 2015, a New Jersey federal judge ruled in McMaster’s favor, stating that she was not barred from collecting overtime pay by the Motor carrier Act Exemption. The judge made the ruling based on the fact that the employee was able to prove that 49% of her days working for Eastern Armored Services Inc. were spent driving a noncommercial vehicle, a position classified under the FLSA as non-exempt, and eligible for overtime pay.

Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are skilled negotiators and litigators who represent employees who have been denied overtime throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania.  Contact Sidkoff, Pincus & Green online or call 215-574-6000 for all your Philadelphia employment law matters.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers Handling Physician Agreement

By ,

Physicians face many of the same preliminary steps in the hiring process as the average corporate employee, including the development of contractual agreements.  Often, physician contracts include areas that are typical of corporate employment agreements, such as compensation, benefits and restrictive covenants.  However, there are other areas, such as issues concerning hospital privileges, medical malpractice coverage, and the division of hours between clinical, research and academic work, which are unique to physician agreements.  Moreover, physicians often have unique financial concerns, such as the payment of liability insurance, continuing medical education expenses, and other costs which are unique to the medical profession.   For these reasons, it is advisable that a physician utilize an attorney who is experienced with physician contracts.  As in any business arrangement, contractual agreements are important to both the employer and employee.  Serious financial obligations and penalties can result when the contracts are legally challenged.  A competent and experienced business contract lawyer in Philadelphia can ensure that physicians are protected and fully understand their obligations.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Provide Legal Counsel and Representation in All Areas of Business Law

Philadelphia business contract lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have been providing highly skilled legal counsel and representation in matters of business law for almost 60 years. If you or someone you know needs a business attorney with experience and knowledge, call our Philadelphia business lawyers at 215-574-6000, or complete our online contact form to schedule a consultation today. Conveniently located in the heart of downtown Philadelphia, Sidkoff, Pincus & Green serve clients throughout the state of Pennsylvania, including Delaware County, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys: 10 Missteps Businesses Make

By ,

Starting a new business is as exciting as it is demanding. With so many details to consider, it is not uncommon for eager entrepreneurs to overlook certain legalities that could potentially get them into major hot water. In these cases, even the most well-intentioned business owners could be breaking the law without even knowing it, putting themselves at risk of litigation, loss of business license, or even criminal charges.

When considering starting a business, it is extremely important to protect yourself and your business from legal troubles that could end up costing time, money, or your freedom. Seek the advice and counsel of an experienced and reputable business lawyer who can help you avoid these and other legal missteps.

Following are some common mistakes entrepreneurs can make:

  1. Failing to obtain all necessary state permits and licenses. Requirements can vary depending on the type of business, the location of headquarters and operations, and what government rules apply.
  2. Failure to make payroll tax deductions. Employers who fail to withhold federal income taxes and turn them over to the federal government are playing a dangerous game.
  3. Deducting personal expenses as business expenses. Determining what expenses are considered business and what are personal can be tricky, especially because many expenses are useful for both purposes.
  4. Misclassifying employees as independent contractors. Misclassification can lead to a myriad of legal problems down the road, including discrimination, wage and hour disputes, Workers’ Compensation, unemployment, and employee benefits.
  5. Classifying all employees as exempt, whether they are or are not. Both federal and state laws rely on a variety of criteria to determine whether an employee is exempt – salary is not the only factor.
  6. Failing to comply with federal and state wage and hour statutes. State laws may vary, so it is wise to keep yourself informed on statutes that apply to employee overtime and rest and meal breaks.
  7. Failing to implement appropriate workplace policies. Policies regarding discrimination and harassment should be prepared and communicated to employees in order to protect the company against an employee claim. Although many federal discrimination laws apply only to companies with 15 or more employees, there may be state discrimination or harassment laws applicable to companies with as few as four employees.
  8. Improper use of investor funds. Spending money given to you by people in trust could be jeopardizing your investor relations at best, or result in being faced with charges of embezzlement at worst.
  9. Selling recalled or counterfeit products. Both are illegal, whether you knew what you were selling was recalled or counterfeit or not.
  10. Not charging, reporting, or collecting sales tax. A business attorney can help to ensure that all state and local sales taxes are charged properly.

Philadelphia Business Law Firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Provide Sound Legal Counsel for Businesses

Business law can be difficult and complex. There are rules; there are exceptions to the rules; and then there are exceptions to the exceptions. Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have the knowledge and the experience to help your growing business succeed. We offer a wide range of business services ranging from contract law, employment law, trademark litigation and governmental over-reaching. We have the strategies to help you avoid litigation, and the knowledge and skills to protect you when litigation is necessary. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to learn how we can help you protect your business.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers Report Breweries “Steamed” Over Use of Trademark

By ,

The City Steam Brewery Cafe in Hartford, Connecticut recently agreed to resolve a lawsuit with Anchor Brewing in California by changing the name of its beer.  According to the lawsuit, Anchor Brewing claimed that City Steam was infringing on their trademark by naming their product, City Steam beer.   Anchor claims that they have been selling its brand named Anchor Steam Beer for well over 85 years, and had the name trademarked in 1980.

The Connecticut based City Steam Brewery has been selling its City Steam beer since 1998 and refused to allow Anchor Brewing to strip it of its name.  The Connecticut company agreed to change the name of its beer to “Citysteam,” but would not relinquish the name of their restaurant, The City Steam Brewery Cafe.   Defense lawyers stated that the compromise is a win for their client.

According to a recent article on HartfordBusiness.com, the recent surge of newcomers in the craft beer market are running into lots of legal woes, especially regarding trademarks.  Most small brewers are mainly interested in getting their beer exposure in the overcrowded market, so they don’t take the time or money to trademark their brand.  Once their beer begins to gain recognition and its market increases, the bigger, established brewers challenge the newcomer with trademark litigation concerning brand confusion.  The recent case between City Steam and Anchor Brewing is expected to set a new precedent for prior ownership cases regarding trademarks.

Philadelphia Business Law Firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green has a Strong Reputation for Successful Legal Counsel and Representation

For over 50 years, the Philadelphia business law firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green has successfully represented countless clients in some of the toughest cases.  The experienced and knowledgeable Philadelphia business attorneys at the firm are committed to providing only the highest quality service to their clients.  If you or someone you know requires the services of a Philadelphia business lawyer, call our office at 215-574-0600, or complete our online contact form to schedule a consultation today.

Our office is located in Center City Philadelphia allowing us to serve clients in Philadelphia and its surrounding areas, including Bala Cynwyd, Merion Station, Wynnewood, Darby, Narberth, Upper Darby, Sharon Hill, Cheltenham, Clifton Heights, Folcroft, Lansdowne, Drexel Hill, Elkins Park, Havertown, Glenolden, Ardmore, Gladwyne, Wyncote, Norwood, Holmes, Haverford, Delaware County, and Montgomery County.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Tech Giants Agree to $415 Million Settlement for Anti-trust Violations

By ,

Four of Silicon Valley’s largest tech companies, Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel, have agreed to a $415 million settlement over claims that they conspired with one another in their employee hiring practices in order to stifle competition and suppress wages.

The settlement puts an end to a class-action lawsuit filed in 2011 on behalf of more than 64,000 programmers and engineers against Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit. The lawsuit claimed the defendants entered into a series of agreements with each other not to recruit or hire each other’s employees. This included a strict policy to refrain from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees.

The plaintiffs alleged that the companies were in violation of state and federal antitrust laws that prohibit practices intended to limit employee’s power to negotiate for higher salaries.

Evidence of the pact included troves of embarrassing email conversations between high-ranking executive officers of the companies that detailed the anti-competitive agreement. In at least one such email, a top executive assured his rival of the swift termination of a recruiter who had dared to violate the pact. Other emails discussed the handshake agreement and its need to be kept quiet in order to avoid a lawsuit.

Lucasfilm, Pixar, and Intuit reached an earlier settlement of $20 million.  Apple, Google, Adobe, and Intel agreed to the $415 million settlement after a previous $324.5 million proposal was rejected in August on the grounds that it didn’t offer enough money for the affected workers.

The companies likely agreed to the deal in order avoid the risk of further litigation. If no settlement was made, the case was set to go before a jury this spring. A loss could have resulted in damages exceeding $9 billion, in addition to marring the public’s perception of the tech powerhouses.

This most recent settlement amounts to approximately $6,400 per employee. The companies have also agreed to refrain from restricting hiring and recruiting practices among themselves.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle Business matters including Antitrust Litigation

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our Philadelphia business attorneys we handle all aspects of business law, including antitrust litigation, class action lawsuits and appeals, employment discrimination, and whistleblower actions. We combine our superior knowledge of the law with a fearless and unwavering commitment to justice in order to produce the best possible outcome for our clients.

Our office is conveniently located in Center City Philadelphia, allowing us to represent clients throughout the region, including Philadelphia County, Delaware County, and Montgomery County. To discuss your case with one of our highly skilled and experienced Philadelphia business lawyers call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online to schedule your confidential consultation.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Sprint Acquisition of RadioShack is Pending

By ,

RadioShack Corp. has been losing customers to online retailers and struggling to turn a profit in recent years.  According to Bloomberg, RadioShack Corp. is negotiating the sale of some of its store leases to wireless carrier, Sprint Corp., as part of a bankruptcy deal.   The balance of store leases unpurchased by Sprint would be closed. However, the terms of this acquisition could change or another bidder could surface before a deal is reached. The Sanpower Group, who took the chain of Brookstone stores out of bankruptcy, is also negotiating with RadioShack.

As a result of RadioShack failing to submit a business plan addressing compliance issues regarding New York Stock Exchange rules, the trading of RadioShack stock has been suspended. The value of RadioShack shares dropped off to 24 cents this week which amounted to a 90% loss of its value from 12 months ago.

Sources say that RadioShack’s largest shareholder, Standard General LP, has offered the struggling company a reorganization loan, the terms of which include the sale of assets in a bankruptcy.   A battle with lenders over control of the company could be avoided by liquidating the stores. One source claims that lender Salus Capital Partners LLC has presented RadioShack with an alternate financing plan. Spokespeople for RadioShack, Standard General LP, Salus at Integrated Corporate Relations Inc. and Sprint have all declined to comment on any alleged talks with RadioShack.

Sprint plans to acquire up to 2,000 of the 4,000 RadioShack locations. The CEO announced to investors at a Citigroup Inc. conference in January that Sprint has plans to expand the company by adding more retail locations to dramatically grow their distribution.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent the Best Interests of Corporations

Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are skilled litigators and negotiators experienced in providing legal representation and advice to companies during bankruptcy and restructuring.  Our offices handle all types of business law and commercial litigation matters. We are conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and we represent clients throughout the country including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Florida, and Texas.  Contact a knowledgeable Philadelphia business attorney at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green by calling 215-574-0600 or submit an online contact form.

New Jersey Business Attorneys Report on Latest Baseball Antitrust Matter

By ,

Major League Baseball, one of the nation’s largest corporations, has found itself amidst a new round of antitrust litigation involving the move of the Oakland Athletics baseball team to San Jose, California.   According to the latest decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, efforts by Major League Baseball to block the team’s move to San Jose did not violate federal antitrust laws.

In 2010, the City of San Jose sought approval from baseball commissioner Bud Selig to move the Oakland baseball team to their city.  Selig denied this request effectively blocking Oakland from moving the baseball team to San Jose.  The City of San Jose proceeded to file suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Major League Baseball was denying the rights of baseball clubs and cities to negotiate relocations and stadium deals in violation of federal antitrust laws.

Congress passed the first federal antitrust laws (including the Sherman Act, Federal Trade Commission Act and Clayton Act) to protect economic liberty and free trade by proscribing unlawful mergers and business dealings.  Private parties, like Major League Baseball, may bring private causes of action against unlawful monopolies and business practices which restrain free trade.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte initially denied San Jose’s claims citing a 1922 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that created a federal antitrust exemption for baseball clubs on the basis that baseball clubs were not engaged in “interstate commerce.”  The City of San Jose appealed the lower court ruling.   Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling that Major League Baseball did not violate federal antitrust laws by barring the team’s move to San Jose.  The Oakland A’s announced last summer the signing of a ten year deal to remain in Oakland.

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our experienced New Jersey business lawyers handle all types of business law matters including antitrust and intellectual property cases.  We represent businesses of all sizes in legal matters pending in state and federal courts.  The Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to serve our business clients throughout the Delaware Valley. To schedule your free confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry form.