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.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers : Vanguard Accused of $1 Billion Tax Fraud

By ,

SPG

The city of Philadelphia is home to one of the most active jurisdictions for Qui Tam lawsuits. A Quit Tam suit is a type of lawsuit brought by a third party whistleblower on behalf of the government. In the United States, under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., “an individual with knowledge past or present of fraud committed against the federal government may bring suit its behalf”. If their case recovers funds for the government, a whistleblower can be awarded substantial sums of money as a percentage of the settlement.

Pennsylvania based investment company Vanguard Group, which manages nearly $3 trillion in assets, is currently in the midst of a qui tam suit brought by its former employee David Danon, who alleges that the company illegally manipulated transfer pricing to keep costs artificially low. Danon’s suit states that after expressing serious concerns about the transfer pricing arrangements, the company brushed aside his concerns and eventually fired him.

Vanguard filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that as a former tax attorney for the company, Danon cannot file suit against them. Furthermore, Vanguard alleges that Danon improperly used privilege and confidential information to bring the suit.

The lead counsel in Danon’s suit, Stephen Sorenson of Thomas, Alexander & Forrester LLP remains optimistic about the suit, stating in an interview with Forbes Magazine that he is hoping for a hearing by early next year. The suit alleges a violation of federal and state tax laws, costing taxpayers more than $1 billion.

Philadelphia qui tam lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green represent third party whistleblowers throughout Philadelphia and New Jersey.  If you or someone you know needs a whistleblower lawyer in Philadelphia call Sidkoff, Pincus and Green at 215-574-0600, or complete and online contact form to schedule a consultation today.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers: FLSA Overtime Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

A Third Circuit judge ruled in March that a driver for Eastern Armored Services Inc., who filed a collective action lawsuit against her employer, is entitled to collect overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The plaintiff claimed that her employer had improperly classified her as ineligible for overtime pay under the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) Exemption of the FLSA.  The MCA exemption applies to drivers of commercial vehicles weighing more than 10,000 lbs. and other employees whose maximum hours of work are determined by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation.

The Third Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiff who claimed that she was eligible for overtime pay under the 2008 Corrections Act which deems motor carrier employees who drive vehicles weighing less than 10,000 lbs., during part or all of their working hours, eligible for overtime.  The plaintiff in this case spent 51% of her working days in a vehicle weighing more than 10,000 lbs. and 49% of her total days working in a vehicle weighing less than 10,000 lbs.

Philadelphia overtime lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are a team of highly skilled litigators representing clients in wage and hour disputes, collective action, and class action lawsuits.  Contact Sidkoff, Pincus & Green online or call 215-574-0600 to discuss your employment law case with a reputable Philadelphia wage and hour lawyer.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Whistleblower Retaliation Case

By ,

SPG

A Fresno, California cardiac perfusionist is suing Community Regional Medical Center and a well-known cardiac surgeon for wrongful termination and retaliation after being identified as a whistleblower. Community Regional Medical Center was fined $75,000 in April of 2012 after James Robillard reported that the cardiac surgeon named in the suit left the operating room before closing his patient’s chest.  An inexperienced assistant was left to complete the surgical procedure, but did not perform it properly.  As a result, the patient’s heart stopped, causing him to bleed and be deprived of oxygen.  He was revived and put on life support but remains in a vegetative state in a nursing home.

The patient’s family filed a medical malpractice suit against the hospital and surgeon in December of 2013.  When the case went to trial, all pertinent records were subpoenaed, including the whistleblower file.  James Robillard was identified as the person originally reporting the incident.  He was also identified by name in two news reports on the case, causing him loss of wages because other medical facilities were reluctant to hire him.

Robillard is seeking $25,000 in punitive damages, and another $10,000 in fines.  He claims that being identified as the whistleblower in this case has had such an effect on his professional career that he had to relocate to Monterey, California in order to find work.  Community Regional Medical Center and the cardiac surgeon named in the suit contend that the claims are absurd and report that Robillard was fired for violating hospital policy on patient confidentiality.  They claim Robillard accessed medical records of patients without authorization, and in doing so, caused a breach in the hospital’s patient confidentiality policies.  Patients were informed of this breach and Robillard was fired.

Community Regional Medical Center and the cardiac surgeon deny all of the allegations brought against them.  The surgeon named in the case filed a $25 million defamation lawsuit against Robillard, but has since had the case dismissed.  The surgeon has the right to refile in the future.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Whistleblowers

Employees who report inappropriate and illegal business practices that have been wrongfully terminated may be protected by whistleblower laws.  If you or someone you know is in need of an whistleblower lawyer in Philadelphia, call Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or complete our online contact form to schedule a consultation today.

The Philadelphia business lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are located in the heart of Center City, Philadelphia and serve clients throughout the Philadelphia area, 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, Montgomery County, and Philadelphia County.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Philadelphia Biotech Firm Pays $2.75 Million Settlement

By ,

SPG

Philadelphia Biotechnology Company Hemispherx Biopharma has agreed to pay a $2.75 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of shareholders. The plaintiffs allege that Hemispherx representatives made “material misrepresentations and omissions” concerning the success of clinical trials for the company’s latest drug candidate Ampligen while soliciting investments.

In 2013, the FDA rejected Hemispherx’s application to market Ampligen, a vaccine enhancer, after an advisory panel determined there was a lack of evidence to substantiate the drugs effectiveness. As a result, Hemispherx stock plunged in value by 43 percent, and the suit seeks to recover damages for investors who purchased or acquired common stock between March 14, 2012 and Dec, 2012. The proposed $2.75 million settlement cannot not be finalized until the final approval hearing scheduled to take place on July 22 at the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia business attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in handing all aspects of business law, commercial litigation and shareholder disputes. For more information, call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or contact us online.

Philadelphia Trademark Attorneys: LUKOIL Sues Philadelphia Gas Station

By ,

SPG

LUKOIL North America has filed a lawsuit against an Allentown gas station for trademark infringement and trade dress infringement, alleging that the business has been falsely operating as a LUKOIL franchise. The fuel company is seeking to recover damages and attorney fees from defendants R.K. Keystone Mobile Mart Inc., Gurmeet Singh, A Airport Texaco Inc., and Swapnesh Sharma who own and operate a former LUKOIL station at 3575 Airport Road in Allentown, PA.

The suit filed on April 27 states that “To date, defendants have merely removed the LUKOIL sign, and the tear drop, leaving intact the well-known LUKOIL trade dress including the prominent use of the primary colors red and white, as well as the sergeant stripes on the canopy”.

Going further, LUKOIL alleges that the defendants ““have been, and continue to be, infringing the LUKOIL trademarks and trade dress at the Allentown station by falsely selling unbranded motor fuels under the LUKOIL trademarks and distinctive LUKOIL trade dress. Such continuing, knowing and willful infringement creates a likelihood of confusion among the consuming public by deceiving them into believing the defendants’ service station dispenses genuine LUKOIL brand motor fuels and other service station goods and services and that the service station is associated and connected with LUKOIL as an authorized retailer.”

The case will be heard by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Trademark attorneys in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in handing all aspects of business law, including trade mark infringement.  We represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Woman Fired Following Struggle with Alcholism

By ,

SPG

Delaware resident, Mary McGee has filed suit against her former employer Exelon Generation Co. alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation in response to her struggle with alcoholism in 2014.

According to the complaint, McGee was instructed not to return to work for 24 hours after being hospitalized in November after fainting at work while under the influence of alcohol. The day after, McGee was administered a drug alcohol test, which she failed with a BAC of .01. After completing an outpatient treatment program and producing clean test results, McGee was not given a return-to-work date and she subsequently relapsed. McGee then voluntarily admitted herself into a rehabilitation center and was cleared to return to work in early May of 2014.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Pennsylvannia, states that McGee was then terminated on July 16 for “violating the company’s code of ethics”. She alleges that Exelon did not provide accommodation for her disability and was therefore wrongfully terminated. McGee is now seeking injunctive action against Exelon along with punitive damages, compensatory back and front pay with benefits, attorney fees and court costs.

Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in handing all aspects of employment law, including wrongful termination. Call us today at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

Philadelphia Commercial Lawyers: Angie’s List Sues Amazon

By ,

SPG

Angie’s List, a US-based paid subscription supported website containing crowd-sourced reviews of local businesses, has sued Amazon Local alleging theft of intellectual property. All together, the federal lawsuit suit levels a whole host of charges against Amazon, including misappropriation of trade secrets, theft, computer trespass, civil conspiracy and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. According to the complaint, Angie’s List alleges that Amazon Local executives stole provider lists by signing up as members of the Angie’s List sight and copying provider profiles, member reviews, and other important proprietary information.

Angie’s List was founded in 1995 to create a national listing of home repair providers and other businesses where members that paying members can browse through and evaluate. In 2014, the company reported nearly $80 million in revenue. This past year, Internet retailing giant Amazon entered the home services procurement market through their subsidiary, Amazon Local. According to Angies List, “”Amazon Local has chosen not to devote the necessary time, resources and effort to compete legitimately with Angie’s List. … Instead, Amazon Local and its employees have chosen the shortcut of surreptitiously accessing and misappropriating Angie’s List’s proprietary information … through dozens (if not more) of Angie’s List membership accounts that were fraudulently obtained and misused’.

In the lawsuit, Angie’s Lists states that their membership agreement “”explicitly prohibits the use of Angie’s List’s accounts and information for commercial purposes”, contending that a dozen Amazon Local employees violated that contract. One of the defendants, Daniel Malamud, signed up for Angie’s List just after taking a job with Amazon Local. As an account executive for South Jersey, Malmud reviewed information for hundreds of service providers throughout the Philadelphia Area.

In a brief statement to the press, Angie’s List spokeswoman Cheryl Reed stated, “We welcome competition, but on fair and legal grounds.”

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our dedicated team of Philadelphia commercial lawyers assist clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters. Our offices are 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: Breach of Contract

By ,

SPG

To establish a breach of contract, there must be a legally binding contract (agreement) or bargained-for exchange that is then not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract. If one party fails to perform the contract in its entirety, or prevents the performance of the contract by the other party, the situation is easier to understand. The situation becomes more complex when the argument is over something subjective in nature, such as the quality of product, or the timing of work. The party who breaches the contract by not performing or improperly performing opens a possible claim for damages by the other party. When the contract is breached, the non-breaching party is relieved of his commitments under the contract.

The court in Giacone v. Virtual Officeware, LLC, 2014 WL 7070205, at *17 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2014) determined that a new sales strategy deployed at Virtual Officeware, LLC (“VOW”) resulted in a breach of contract. The Plaintiff was demoted during a restructuring of VOW’s sales department and lost benefits that accompanied his title, then forced to resign once he was no longer receiving compensation that was promised by his contract. VOW contended that their new strategy was not a breach because the employment agreement came before the restructuring of the department. The Defense also argued the commission terms in the agreement were only attached due to a mutual mistake.

The court found the employment agreement was a valid contract, which was breached by the Defendant. The violation caused the Plaintiff to lose his title, repeat customers, and commissions. Judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $883,871 for lost wages and $220,968 in liquidated damages.

Philadelphia commercial 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.