Category: Business Law

General Counsel for Wynn Casinos Involved in Invasion-of-Privacy Lawsuit

By anthony, 3rd January 2020

Kim Sinatra, former general counsel for Wynn Casinos, was named in an invasion of privacy lawsuit, alleging that she approved a secret undercover operation targeting Jorgen Nielsen, the former artistic director of a salon at the Wynn Las Vegas. In an article published in the Wall Street Journal, Nielsen publicly accused casino owner, Steve Wynn, of sexual misconduct. The lawsuit claimed that the operation was meant to obtain derogatory information about Nielsen in retaliation for being the named source in the Wall Street Journal article. The complaint also named Wynn Resorts CEO Matthew Maddox and Wynn director of security, James Stern.

According to the lawsuit, Nielsen alleged that Sinatra, Maddox, and Stern sent a spy posing as a client to the Palms Casino Resort, where he accepted a position after resigning from The Wynn Salon, in an effort to gather derogatory information that Wynn could use against him. Shortly after the undercover operation, Wynn filed a defamation lawsuit against Nielsen.

Suspicious Sequence of Events

Nielsen’s attorney discussed the troublesome details surrounding the timing of the alleged spy operation. In January 2018, Nielsen was the named source in a Wall Street Journal article. In February, Wynn resigned as chairman and CEO. The undercover operative was sent to the Palms Casino Resort in March, and Wynn filed a defamation lawsuit in April. Nielson’s lawsuit accused Sinatra, and the other parties named, of invasion of privacy, tortious interference with employment relationship, and civil conspiracy. The lawsuit stated that Stern organized the plan, while Sinatra and Maddox approved it.

In a statement provided by a Wynn spokesperson to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the lawsuit had no merit. Maddox provided a sworn statement before the Massachusetts Gaming Commission saying that the company did not authorize any inappropriate surveillance activity involving Jorgen Nielsen. Sinatra’s lawyer did not respond to a request for a comment

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. seek justice for victims of Invasion of Privacy

If your employment and reputation were jeopardized due to an invasion of privacy by an employer or other party, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. as soon as possible. We will investigate the details of your case and ensure that your legal rights are protected. Our dedicated team will not stop fighting for you until we secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Law Firm Reaches Settlement with Former Associate in Age Bias Lawsuit

By anthony, 23rd December 2019

Pryor Cashman LLP reached a settlement with a former associate who claimed that the law firm unfairly terminated his employment after 18 years on the job. The associate claimed that the law firm fired him because of his age, and that they were in violation of the Age Discrimination Act (“ADA”). The law firm argued that he was fired because of his performance, which was considered adequate for most of his time at the firm but had taken a noticeable turn for the worse. According to the members of the firm, he developed a negative, often arrogant attitude.

What is Age Discrimination?

If an employer treats an employee, or a prospective employee, unfavorably due to their age, it is considered age discrimination. This generally applies to employees who are over the age of 40. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) states that employers may not discriminate against individuals who are 40 years of age or older. Employees who are under the age of 40 are not protected under the ADEA, unless their state allows it. In addition, it is not considered illegal if an employer treats an older worker more favorably than a younger one, even if both individuals are over the age of 40. According to the ADEA, employers may not discriminate based on age in any aspect of the employment process, including hiring, salary amount, job responsibilities, promotions, training opportunities, benefits, and any other terms or conditions of employment.

Examples of Age Discrimination

Age discrimination can be obvious and offensive, or it can be subtle, but equally disturbing. Examples of age discrimination include the following:

Offensive comments about a person’s age
Not getting an interview because of an applicant’s age
An employer terminates older workers during company layoffs
Turning down older employers who request promotions
Firing older workers so that employers can hire younger workers and pay them less
Calling older workers names based on their age
Recruiting only prospective employees who are under the age of 40

Age discriminators can range from a victim’s supervisor or a co-worker to a client or a customer. Any employment policy or practice that has a negative impact on employees or applicants who are 40 years of age or older can be considered illegal. The only exception is if the policy or practice is based on a reasonable factor other than age.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. represent victims of Age Discrimination

If you or someone you know was discriminated against at work due to age, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Protecting your rights is our top priority and we will work tirelessly to obtain the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Former Employees Allege Pension Cuts During Corporate Restructuring

By anthony, 7th November 2019

Talen Energy is a privately-owned independent power producer that serves commercial and industrial customers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Ohio, and the District of Columbia. In 2016, the company was bought by Riverstone Holding, a New York City-based private investment firm that specializes in the energy industry. According to a federal lawsuit, three former senior engineers from Talen claimed that the company failed to pay them their full pensions after Riverstone Holding took over the company.

All three former employees worked at PPL’s Brunner Island power plant in York County. PPL’s energy supply division became Talen Energy, which continued to own Brunner Island. When Talen Energy was launched on June 1, 2015, the company inherited PPL’s pension provisions. According to the attorney, who represents the former employees, Talen and the senior executives responsible for administering the pension did not pay the men their full pensions required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Court documents claimed that Talen Energy owes them approximately $750,000 in pension costs.

ERISA Anti-Cutback Rule

ERISA includes an anti-cutback rule, which states that employers may not reduce or eliminate early retirement pension benefits that employees have accrued over time. When Talen was taken over by Riverstone Holdings, the then-employees lost their jobs. Since they were all under the age of 60, they were entitled to their full pensions, as well as pension supplements for losing their jobs.

However, Talen executives were allegedly responsible for reducing the retirement payment for each of the three former employees. They also supposedly omitted several provisions for full pensions and supplements that had been in PPL’s pension plan. As a result, they would have been compensated thousands of dollars less than they were legally entitled to receive. According to the workers’ attorney, Talen retained employee benefit plans after the spin-off from PPL. This key piece of information will be presented in court.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Employee Pension Issues

If you did not receive your full pension from your employer, do not hesitate to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Federal law states that employers may not withhold pension benefits from eligible employees. We will protect your rights and work tirelessly to secure the full pension amount to which you are entitled. We will not stop fighting for you until you are completely satisfied. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Supreme Court Ruling Calls for Paid Sick Leave for Workers in Pittsburgh

By anthony, 5th September 2019

For some workers, having to take a sick day means not getting paid. That may simply not be an option for those hard-working employees who are struggling to make ends meet. Instead, they come into work, and run the risk of getting sicker and spreading germs to other employees. Fortunately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Pittsburgh must offer guaranteed paid sick leave to workers. While some small businesses and restaurant associations have sued and won in the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that the paid sick leave ordinance gives the city authority to further the cause of disease control and prevention.

Paid Sick Leave Ordinance

In a 4-3 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Pittsburgh’s 2015 ordinance was allowed to stand. The decision will impact the roughly 50,000 lower-income workers who did not have access to paid sick leave. According to the ordinance, employers with 15 or more employees must provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave per year. Employers with up to 14 employees must provide up to 24 hours of paid sick leave per year. It is unclear exactly when this will take effect.

Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto said that the decision will have a significant impact on the men and women who live and work in the city. He went on to say that no worker should be forced to decide between staying home sick and losing a day’s pay or coming to work and risk getting others sick. Prior to the ruling, the home rule charter law did not require Pittsburgh employers to offer paid sick leave. The law states that municipalities should not be responsible for requirements placed on employers or businesses. However, the Supreme court overturned this decision.

Those opposed to the ruling argue that decision is going to be particularly hard on small businesses. However, advocates of paid sick leave argue that, in addition to offering improved benefits to employees, it helps prevent the spread of illness, reduces the cost of healthcare, and ensures that parents will be able to care for sick children or other family members.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Advocate for Workers’ Rights

If you have a wage and hour dispute, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Lanham Act’s Ban on Immoral Trademarks is a Violation of the First Amendment, Superior Court Rules

By anthony, 16th August 2019

In the case of Ianco v. Brunetti, the clothing line, FUCT, was denied a trademark for its use of the F-word, even though it is spelled differently. The founder of the clothing company, Erik Brunetti, wanted to trademark FUCT, which stands for “Friends U Can’t Trust,” but the application was denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because the brand name was considered vulgar. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the clothing brand and found that the Lanham Act’s ban on scandalous trademarks is a violation of the First Amendment.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, which stated that the law violated the First Amendment rights of artist Erik Brunetti. The Justice Department tried to limit the meaning of “scandalous” to only cover names that are sexually explicit, but Kagan said that the Lanham Act covers all scandalous and immoral ideas. Therefore, denying the trademark for Brunetti’s clothing brand violates the First Amendment. Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh endorsed the opinion.

According to Justice Kagan, the Lanham Act’s ban on immoral trademarks favors ideas that are socially acceptable and rejects those that provoke offense and condemnation. For example, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected a trademark for “You can’t spell healthcare without the THC,” which was a suggested tagline for a pain-relief medication. However, it approved a trademark for “Say no to drugs – reality is the trip in life.” It also rejected a trademark for “Madonna” for a wine label but approved “Jesus died for you” on t-shirts and other clothing items.

In a separate concurrence written by Justice Alito, he wrote that it is crucial that the court stand firm on the principle that the First Amendment will not tolerate viewpoint discrimination, particularly at a time when free speech is under attack. He went on to say that the Court’s decision does not prevent Congress from passing statutes that ban registration of trademarks that may contain “vulgar terms that play no real part in the expression of ideas.”

In dissents written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen G. Breyer, the justices said that the ban on scandalous trademarks did not violate the First Amendment when only addressing obscenity, vulgarity and profanity. Sotomayor said that the decision will limit the government’s power to refuse trademarks that contain extremely vulgar and obscene words.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with Trademark Issues

If your trademark application was denied, or your First Amendment rights have been violated, contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Our skilled legal team will review the details of your case and ensure that your rights are protected as we work to resolve your trademark dispute. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we represent clients across Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Judge Denies Philadelphia Man’s Lawsuit Against Domino’s Over Racial Slur

By anthony, 15th August 2019

A Philadelphia resident filed a lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza after a Domino’s employee allegedly directed a racial slur at him during a confrontation in July of 2017. The customer had complained that he received a pizza via delivery that was burnt. He drove to the restaurant to return the pizza and request a refund. The situation became heated after the customer took a picture of the employee, who refused to give the customer his refund unless he agreed to delete the photo. The employee claimed that having her picture taken was against her religion. As the argument escalated, the Domino’s employee allegedly directed an offensive racial slur at the customer. A Pennsylvania Superior Court judge ruled that, while offensive, a racial slur is not enough to warrant a lawsuit.

Ruling Based on 1985 Precedent

The initial lawsuit claimed that Domino’s was negligent in the way it hired, trained, and supervised its employees. The customer claimed that the racial slur directed at him caused emotional distress. Due to a precedent that was established in 1985 in the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which ruled that an individual can only be held liable for emotional distress if the individual’s conduct is extreme and outrageous, the initial lawsuit was dismissed.

The precedent is based on an incident involving an altercation between a department store employee and a shopper, where the employee reportedly directed the n-word at the shopper. The ruling states that an individual cannot be held liable for mere insults, threats, and other indignities or trivialities. Until legal and societal changes occur, plaintiffs must be expected to accept a certain degree of offensive, inconsiderate, or unkind acts. The law cannot intervene every time someone’s feelings are hurt.

The Domino’s customer appealed after the initial lawsuit was dismissed, claiming that the 1985 ruling was outdated. While the Pennsylvania Superior Court made it clear that it does not condone such offensive and derogatory language, the appeal was denied.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers at The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle a Range of Legal Matters

If you suffered emotional distress, financial harm, or were injured in any way as a result of racial discrimination in the workplace, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business litigation lawyers at The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Department of Labor Conducts Investigation, Finds Many Employers in Violation of FLSA

By anthony, 14th August 2019

The Department of Labor recently conducted multiple investigations throughout the country, identifying multiple violators of various aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA sets guidelines as to who is protected, and dictates that certain employees must receive 1.5x their hourly rate for any weekly hours worked in excess of 40. The Department of Labor penalized various employers who improperly compensated their employees for mistakes such as incorrectly rounding an hourly wage rate, or playing flat daily rates.

One of the investigations ordered Lowndes Advocacy Resource Center Inc. (LARC) of Georgia to pay $157,473 back to 130 of its employees, because it did not meet the requirements of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which allows employers, after obtaining a certificate, to pay a minimum wage less than the Federal minimum to disabled employees. LARC incorrectly rounded the employees’ wage rates, deducted their break time from their daily hours, and did not count travel time as work time, resulting in their gross underpayment.

Similarly, ASAP Courier & Logistics LLC, was ordered to pay 160 of its employees $64,027 in back wages based on underpayment of its delivery drivers. The Florida based company paid its drivers flat daily rates without regard to how many hours they worked, severely reducing the amount of overtime that they should have been paid. Paying flat daily rates is not illegal; however, any hours worked in excess of 40 must be compensated by 1.5x the employee’s hourly rate. Similar to ASAP, Chattanooga Restaurant Group LLC had to pay its employees $153,740 for failing to accurately track their hours, significantly reducing the amount of overtime to which the employees were entitled.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers for Fair Labor Standards Act in Philadelphia and South Jersey at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

SugarHouse Casino Sued by Gamblers for Unfair Losses

By anthony, 12th July 2019

Recently, two card players filed a lawsuit against SugarHouse HSP Gaming, L.P. and Rush Street Gaming of Chicago after they lost a combined total of close to a quarter of a million dollars at the SugarHouse casino in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that SugarHouse supplied their table with decks of cards that were illegitimate, including decks that had too few cards, too many cards, or decks that had not been properly shuffled. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, which includes the $250,000 in gambling losses, as well as punitive damages and attorney fees.

According to the lawsuit, the two men lost a total of $250,870.18 between the two of them between May 2017 and January 2018. The plaintiffs accused the casino of fraud and failing to provide an honest wagering environment for customers. For example, one casino worker found 16 cards left in an automatic shuffler. Investigators found that the cards were missing from six decks, and those six decks were used in many card games during the previous day, including 46 rounds of blackjack.

A spokesman from SugarHouse released a statement saying that the employees responsible for these infractions have been either disciplined or terminated. In addition, the casino has taken steps to improve the procedures in order to prevent this from happening again.

Other Complaints Against SugarHouse

This is not the first time that SugarHouse has been named in a lawsuit. On July 26, 2018, SugarHouse was fined $100,000 by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board for using broken shuffling machines or dealing cards using illegitimate decks from May 2017 to January 2018. SugarHouse did admit that there were a number of occasions when employees did not properly address the warning lights on the automatic shufflers used at poker, blackjack, and mini-baccarat tables. None of the players involved in these games were reimbursed, and the plaintiff accused the casino of failing to provide a “fair and honest wagering environment.”

While most gamblers understand the odds of winning big are against them, there is a certain thrill in the possibility of beating the house. When illegitimate cards are being used, the house has an unfair advantage over players who are trying to win fair and square.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Represent Victims of Unfair Gambling Conditions

If you experienced an unfair or dishonest environment while participating in poker, blackjack, or any other card game at a casino, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. We will investigate the details of your case and ensure that you receive the financial compensation that you deserve. Protecting your rights is our top priority. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-547-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we assist clients across Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

HUP Employee Fired While Recovering from Breast Cancer Treatment

By anthony, 3rd July 2019

The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania has a reputation for being a leading breast cancer treatment center. When an anesthesiology technician who worked at the hospital was diagnosed with breast cancer, she knew that she was in good hands, and that she would receive excellent treatment, which she did. Unfortunately, while the employee was still undergoing chemotherapy and radiation, she was fired from her job, which caused her and her family significant financial hardship and stress.

A mammogram and biopsy confirmed the cancer after the plaintiff found a lump in her breast. Doctors performed a lumpectomy and checked to see if the cancer had spread into the lymph nodes, which it had. As a result, she had to undergo more aggressive treatment, including a mastectomy followed by 16 weeks of weekly chemotherapy, then six weeks of daily radiation. She was able to take a four-month medical leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act so that she could rest and recover from the side effects of treatment.

Plaintiff Fired After Second Request for Medical Leave

After the initial extension of her medical leave, her doctors requested a second extension due to the physical effects of the radiation, including burns, tight skin, and open wounds. The hospital’s Office of Disability Management replied to the request, saying that her department supervisor would determine whether accommodations should be made that would not impose an undue hardship. However, instead of receiving an accommodation, the plaintiff received a termination letter in the mail following a series of unpleasant phone conversations with a representative from the hospital’s personnel department.

According to the plaintiff, at no point did anyone at the hospital ever give any indication that her job was in jeopardy. She had to move in with her mother after exhausting her disability and unemployment benefits, and is now working as a classroom aide in a local school. She filed a lawsuit against the hospital and is seeking financial compensation for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The hospital has since filled her position, and the new hire’s start date was the same day the plaintiff would have returned to work if the second request for a leave of absence had been approved.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with Employment Disputes

If your employment was unfairly terminated or your legal rights were compromised in any way, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will conduct a thorough investigation into your case, and the circumstances surrounding your termination. If we determine that your legal rights were violated, we will seek the financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Navient’s Request to Dismiss Lawsuit Denied by District Judge

By anthony, 25th June 2019

Navient Corporation is a student loan servicer based in Delaware. According to a recent lawsuit filed on behalf of students who have been harmed by Navient, the company engaged in abusive practices that were financially harmful to borrowers, costing them billions of dollars. A spokesperson from Navient said that the allegations were unfounded and the company made a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Robert Mariani denied the motion, which means that the case will proceed.

Highlights of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit against Navient includes the following claims:

The company made predatory loans to students who were attending for-profit and non-profit colleges that had graduation rates that were below 50 percent. Navient knew that a high percentage of these students would not be able to repay the loans.
Navient increased its subprime lending, ignoring the fact that the loans would most likely default at very high rates.
Navient urged students to apply for short-term loan forbearances. Unlike loan deferments, the interest continues to accrue and adds to the loan’s principal. This should only be used as a short-term solution for students who are having a temporary problem making payments.

This is not the first lawsuit filed against the company. Three other states have filed lawsuits against Navient as well.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients Harmed by Abusive Loan Practices

If you were financially compromised by a student loan that was recommended to you by a loan officer, it is in your best interest to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will thoroughly examine the loan agreement and recommend the best legal course of action. Protecting your rights and securing the financial compensation you deserve is out top priority. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients across southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Newer
1
…
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
…
26
Older

1101 Market Street Suite 2700, Philadelphia, PA 19107