Category: Business Law


Applying Pennsylvania Law to Contracts with Force Majeure clauses during COVID-19  

By ,

The COVID-19 health crisis has led to government mandated shutdowns of non-essential businesses in Pennsylvania for an extended period of time. Further, due to ongoing health concerns, many questions remain about whether parties will be interested in performing under contracts even after stay-at-home and shut-down orders are lifted.  For example, if you have a large event scheduled in August, will you want to hold it even if the Commonwealth permits large gatherings?  If you have these types of questions, and have entered into a written agreement, it is important to determine whether there is a force majeure clause, and to examine it closely.

A force majeure clause is a contract provision that excuses a party from performance if an unforeseeable event arises during the terms of the contract. Commonly, this type of clause is referred to as an “act of god” provision. When drafting force majeure clauses, parties control the contours of the agreement and those contours will dictate the application, effect and scope of the clause. However, generally speaking, the non-performance must have been caused by an unforeseeable event at the time the contract was entered into. In addition, the event must not have been due to any fault or negligence by the parting asserting the application of the clause.

For courts applying Pennsylvania law, they will likely also look to see whether performance has been made impossible, not simply impractical. In Sunseri v. Garcia & Maggini Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a force majeure clause. The party asserting excusal under the clause did not fulfill its obligations under a contract due to crop failure. Although the contract included crop failure in the force majeure clause, the Court held that application of the clause was not valid due to a partial crop failure, which rendered performance still possible.

COVID-19 is an unprecedented occurrence that many courts have yet to address, particularly as it applies to the enforcement of contracts. The courts in Pennsylvania may apply “act of god” provisions to this pandemic, but that is uncertain and could depend on the contract language.  This could vary on a case-to-case basis, considering the type of contract and material terms of the contract, such as scope in time. If the contract contains broad “act of god” language, then a court is probably more likely to apply the clause versus more specific language defined by the parties themselves. Moreover, there have been legislative efforts to enact laws that would mandate the application of any force majeure clause to apply to the pandemic. To date, state and local governments in Pennsylvania have not enacted such laws.

If you have concerns about how the COVID-19 will impact a contract with or without a force majeure clause, the Philadelphia lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can assist you with these matters. To schedule an initial consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Business Law, Coronavirus
  Comments: Comments Off on Applying Pennsylvania Law to Contracts with Force Majeure clauses during COVID-19  
  Other posts by

Amazon Can Now Be Held Liable for Damaged Third-Party Products

By ,

In addition to the products that Amazon sells itself, the online retail giant also allows third-party vendors to sell products through its website. There are times, however, when the products are damaged or defective. Depending on the product and the nature of the defect, this can cause injuries to the consumer. Until recently, Amazon could not be sued by consumers if a third-party product was defective because the law stated that Amazon was not considered a seller. However, a federal district judge recently ruled that Amazon can now be held liable for selling defective third-party products.

One example of a defective third-party product involved a consumer from Pennsylvania who ordered a dog collar from an Amazon Marketplace seller. The collar broke while she was walking her dog, causing the leash to snap and recoil. It hit her in the eye, causing permanent blindness. A district court in Pennsylvania ruled in favor or Amazon, saying that the retailer was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects platforms from the actions of people using those platforms. After she appealed the ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled in her favor.

In the Court’s ruling, the judge stated that Amazon could be held liable for being part of the sales chain. In addition, the Court stated that Amazon is protected for speech, but not for the sale of goods in the real world. According to the Circuit Judge, Amazon may be liable because its business model allows third-party vendors to essentially be hidden from the consumer. If a consumer is injured by a defective third-party product, this makes it difficult for the consumer to hold the vendor liable for the injuries.

Third-Party Products Make Up Significant Percentage of Amazon Business

Roughly half of the products sold on Amazon are third-party products. In the third quarter of 2019, Amazon’s profits from third-party products totaled approximately $11 billion. The defective collar sold on Amazon by the vendor, Furry Gang, is just one example of a damaged third-party product that caused injuries to the consumer. Another defective third-party product that got a lot of attention in 2015 involved the Chinese hoverboards. Problems with the battery caused them to catch on fire, resulting in hundreds of fires and burn-related injuries. State Farm is seeking to hold Amazon liable for the $600,000 in damages associated with a house fire that occurred when the hoverboard caught on fire.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Third-Party Liability Issues

The Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. handle a wide range of legal matters, including cases involving third-party liability issues. Our skilled legal team has a proven track record of reaching successful outcomes for our clients. 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.

Understanding Employment Law Helps Businesses Avoid Future Lawsuits  

By ,

When employers appreciate and respect their employees by offering competitive salaries and benefits packages, opportunities for promotions, and paid time off, their employees are generally more productive and loyal to the company. However, if an employee has been discriminated against or accuses the company of legal wrongdoing, an employer could face serious legal issues if they do not know how to protect themselves from lawsuits and discrimination claims. An experienced employment lawyer can answer all your questions and prepare the legal documents necessary to protect your company from future lawsuits.

One of the most important steps companies should take to avoid serious employment law disputes is to draft a comprehensive, detailed contract that takes as many possibilities into consideration as possible. This is true regardless of how big or small your company is. There is a tendency for entrepreneurs and small business owners to assume that employment law only applies to larger corporations. They do not always consider the fact that small business owners can get into hot water if they make bad hiring and firing decisions or treat their employees poorly.

Importance of Paid Time Off

Employers do not always recognize the value of giving employees paid leave. While some may think it is an unproductive expense, it pays off in the long run by encouraging employees to prioritize their health and wellbeing. Ultimately, this builds job satisfaction and productivity. In addition, if an employer expects employees to work long hours during a particularly busy time, they may be less likely to complain, or accuse the company of unfair treatment if they can take advantage of paid days off.

Employers should also make it a habit of documenting everything that happens in the workplace. For example, if an employee is injured, fill out a detailed accident report that includes information about how the accident occurred and how the company will handle it. Depending on the company size, employers may want to consider hiring a dedicated specialist that can help manage a company’s records.

Hiring an employment lawyer is a significant expense, but one that can save thousands of dollars. An employment lawyer should protect the company and have a thorough understanding of contracts and policies. However, they should not attempt to confuse an employee who accused the company of wrongdoing, simply to try and outwit them. Companies cannot depend on their legal team to bend the rules on their behalf.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Provide Skilled Legal Counsel for Employers

The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are highly skilled in all areas of law that impact the employer-employee relationship, including discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination. Our experienced legal team will work closely with you to create a litigation strategy that addresses your specific concerns. 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.

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

By ,

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 ,

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 ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers handle employee pension issues.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.

  Category: Business Law, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Former Employees Allege Pension Cuts During Corporate Restructuring
  Other posts by

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

By ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers advocate for workers’ rights to paid sick leave.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.

  Category: Business Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Supreme Court Ruling Calls for Paid Sick Leave for Workers in Pittsburgh
  Other posts by

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

By ,

Philadelphia business lawyers assist clients with business and trademark issues.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.

  Category: Business Law, Trademark Infringement
  Comments: Comments Off on Lanham Act’s Ban on Immoral Trademarks is a Violation of the First Amendment, Superior Court Rules
  Other posts by

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

By ,

Philadelphia business litigation lawyers will fight for your rights against racial discrimination.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 ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers advocate for clients who's employer is violating FLSA.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.

  Category: Business Law, FLSA
  Comments: Comments Off on Department of Labor Conducts Investigation, Finds Many Employers in Violation of FLSA
  Other posts by