Category: Business Law

Tortious Interference as applied by Pennsylvania Courts

By ,

SPG

“One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract.” Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin & Creskoff v. Epstein, 393 A.2d 1175 (Pa. 1978).

This duty of non-interference applies whether or not there is a contract with a third party See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766, Comment (b) (1979)( “there is a general duty not to interfere intentionally with another’s reasonable business expectancies of trade with third persons, whether or not they are secured by contract…). This duty also applies to contracts that are terminable at will. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766, Comment (g) (1979).  “Under Pennsylvania law, to succeed on a claim for tortious interference with existing or prospective business relationships, a party must show:

(1) The existence of a contractual or prospective contractual or economic relationship between the plaintiff and a third party

(2) Purposeful action by the defendant, specifically intended to harm an existing relationship or intended to prevent a prospective relation from occurring

(3) The absence of privilege or justification on the part of the defendant

(4) Legal damage to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s conduct and

(5) For prospective contracts, a reasonable likelihood that the relationship would have occurred but for the defendant’s interference.”

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., our Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys handle many types of legal matters, including those involving tortious interference. To discuss your case with a Philadelphia business lawyer, call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online.

Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania Rules That Summary Judgement Is Not Warranted Where Plaintiff Did Not Destroy Evidence As A Result Of Negligence Or Bad Faith

By ,

SPG

In Schroeder v. Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania determined whether a product liability defendant and a non-product liability defendant are entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiff failed to preserve a defectively-designed product. 710 A.2d 23, 24 (Pa. 1998). In Schroeder, plaintiff represented the state of the decedent, who died when his truck caught fire after the decedent lost control of the truck.   Following the accident, the decedent’s insurer sold the truck’s remains to a scrapper, who took the remains to a salvage yard after plaintiff signed title over to the insurer.  The plaintiff requested the salvage yard not sell or destroy the truck until examination. However, the salvage yard sold many of the truck’s parts.  The plaintiff filed suit against the truck’s manufacturer and seller alleging it was defective. Plaintiff also sued the DOT alleging it negligently maintained the highway, which caused decedent to lose control of his truck. The defendants moved for, and the trial court granted, summary judgment on the ground the truck had been spoiled. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding the plaintiff was vested with absolute responsibility to preserve evidence and failed to do so, warranting summary judgment.

Applying previously stated methods to the case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court, determining that the product liability defendants, the seller and manufacturer, were not entitled to summary judgment. As to fault, the first factor for spoliation, the court found that no evidence in the summary judgment motions supported the plaintiff’s transfer to the salvage yard was negligent or in bad faith, particularly given the plaintiff’s requests not to sell or destroy the truck. Additionally, the court found the second and third factors also did not necessitate summary judgment in the case.  The court determined that because the plaintiff claimed product liability based on a design defect common to all similar trucks, the prejudice to the defendants/appellees was not great as they could inspect other trucks for the alleged defect.  Accordingly, the court noted a lesser sanction, like a jury instruction on the spoliation, was warranted.

Additionally, the court determined that DOT also was not entitled to summary judgment based on spoliation.  The court reiterated that summary judgment was not warranted due to plaintiff’s fault.  Further, examining the second factor, the court noted DOT suffered less prejudice from spoliation of evidence than the products liability defendants, as claims against DOT related to the condition of the roads rather than the truck.  Finally, in consideration of the third factor, the court found that a lessor sanction such as a jury instruction on the spoliation would be proper.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advise Clients Seeking Summary Judgement

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., our Pennsylvania and South Jersey business lawyers offer experienced guidance for a variety of legal matters. We will work tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcome for you case. To schedule a consultation in our Philadelphia office, call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online.

Definition and Determination of Spoliation of Evidence under PA Law

By ,

SPG

Definition and Punishments

‘Spoliation of evidence’ is the non-preservation or significant alteration of evidence for pending or future litigation.  When a party to a suit has been charged with spoliating evidence in that suit (sometimes called ‘first-party spoliation’) . . . trial courts [may] exercise their discretion to impose a range of sanction against the spoliator.” Additionally, sanctions for spoliation arise from “the common sense observation that a party who has noticed that evidence is relatable to litigation and who proceeds to destroy said evidence, is more likely to have been threatened by that evidence, than a party in the same position who does not destroy the evidence.

In other words, Pennsylvania courts recognize that a potential remedy for spoliation is allowing the jury to draw an “adverse inference” against the spoliating party.

In federal court, “spoliation occurs where: the evidence was in the party’s control; the evidence is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case; there has been actual suppression or withholding of evidence; and, he duty to preserve the evidence was reasonably foreseeable to the party.” As to sanctions in federal county, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has noted that spoliation ‘may give rise to sanctions which include: dismissal of a claim or granting a judgment in favor of a prejudiced part; suppression of evidence; an averse inference, referred to as the spoliation inference; fines; and attorney’s fees and costs.”

The Test for Determining Spoliation and its Severity

To make such a determination, the court must balance three factors:  “(1) the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and (3) the availability of a lesser sanction that will protect the opposing party’s rights and deter future similar conduct. In evaluating the first prong, the fault of the party altering or destroying evidence, courts must consider both “the extent of the offending party’s duty or responsibility to preserve the relevant evidence, and the presence of absence of bad faith.”

Philadelphia Local Counsel at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Those Affected by Spoliation of Evidence

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., we handle many types of legal matters, including spoliation of evidence. Call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online for local legal counsel in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Philadelphia Cracking Down on Discriminatory Business Practices

By ,

SPG

The Fair Practice Ordinance of the Philadelphia Code (FPO) prohibits businesses from discriminating (against patrons) on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, disability, marital status, familial status, genetic information, or domestic or sexual violence. Recently, there has been public outcry over alleged discrimination toward LGBT people in some Philadelphia bars and restaurants. In light of this, Mayor Jim Kenney recently signed a bill amending the FPO to more stringently punish businesses who engage in “severe or repeated violations” without efforts to remediate such practices by authorizing the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (PCHR) to order a business to cease operations “for a specified period of time.” The PCHR will eventually enact further regulations to clarify the meaning of “severe and repeated” and “effective efforts” or the length of time are.

Philadelphia’s amended FPO law comes at a critical time in the unfolding of discriminatory business-patron regulations nationwide. This June, the Supreme Court decided to grant cert to a related case involving a baker in Colorado refusing to bake wedding cakes for same sex couples because of his religious beliefs. The Court will hear Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the coming term; its outcome will likely have determinative implications for the enforceability, or lack thereof, of laws like the FPO.

For more information, contact our Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Trade Secrets Lawsuit

By ,

SPG

An architecture and construction company, Tesla Wall Systems LLC, has been awarded $14.5 million in damages in a claim against its former president. Among other things, the claim alleged breach of contract based on the trade secret/restrictive covenant clause in the employment contract. The contract contained post-employment restrictions barring the ex-president from interference with company business relationships for six months, and from soliciting employees for nine months.

Tesla Wall alleged that the breach of confidentiality began as early as September 2012 when the defendant bought three laptops. The company maintained that he did not ask to be reimbursed for his purchase because he was using them to steal trade secrets. In the complaint, Tesla employees said that after his departure, the defendant continued to pursue Tesla projects and customers with his new company. The list of proprietary information that he allegedly took with him included everything from software and technology, to technical data and research, engineering designs, internal bids and proposals, as well as customer lists and internal pricing information.

Many claims involving restrictive covenants never make it to trial as the parties often opt for a settlement.  However in this case, the employer decided to pursue the claim to its conclusion. After sitting through more than ten days of trial, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York returned a verdict in favor of Tesla Wall LLC.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Breach of Contract Matters, Restrictive Covenant Actions and Trade Secret Claims

The Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. have experience in contract law, restrictive covenants and trade secrets. Please call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are in Philadelphia and we serve clients nationwide.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Court Rules on Copyright

By ,

SPG

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a watershed decision in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, holding that the decorative features on cheerleading uniforms are protected by federal copyright law. The issue before the court was what was the appropriate test to determine whether a feature of a useful article, such as an article of clothing, is protected under the 1976 Copyright Act’s Section 101. The Court set out to resolve a widespread disagreement as to what testing standard is most appropriate.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion. He wrote that an artistic feature of a uniform’s design can be copyrighted if it can be perceived as a two or three-dimensional work of art that stands separate from the uniform itself. The analysis applies equally to all “useful articles.” In addition, the feature must qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the uniform.

Varsity Brands manufactures cheerleading uniforms and athletic apparel. Varsity has more than 200 copyright registrations for two-dimensional designs consisting of various patterns, chevrons, and shapes. Designers create concepts that consist of original combinations, positionings, and arrangements of elements and do not consider functionality or the ease of actually producing uniforms. Varsity sued Star Athletica, who also markets cheerleading uniforms, after they allegedly copied two-dimensional art designs that Varsity had copyrighted. The Court held that the uniforms at issue met the requirements set forth by the newly devised test.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, finding that Star Athletica’s designs looked like generic pictures of cheerleader uniforms. He compared the situation to a pair of old shoes in a Van Gogh painting—stating that it would not qualify as a shoe design copyright, though the painting itself would be copyrightable.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred with the majority’s judgment, but not its opinion. She said that designs are not designs of useful articles, but rather are themselves copyrightable graphic works reproduced on useful articles. She found that the designs were standalone works of sculptural art that were covered by Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle All Types of Trademark Litigation

If you are seeking representation in any type of business, copyright, or trademark matter, the Philadelphia trademark litigation lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are available to answer your questions. To schedule a consultation with us, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers: Future of the Overtime Rule

By ,

SPG

Last year, the Department of Labor issued a new ruling for overtime pay extending the maximum salary threshold a worker can earn and still be eligible for overtime to $47,500.  The new rule, which was set to take effect on December 1, 2016, would enable approximately 4 million more workers to become eligible for overtime pay.  However, in November of 2016, a federal court judge in Texas temporarily blocked the rule, holding that it does not comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act on the grounds that the Labor Department may not decide which workers qualify for overtime based only on their salary.  The Department of Justice under President Obama appealed this decision.

With the law temporarily blocked and a new administration in place, the future of the overtime rule is uncertain.  The federal court in Texas has given the DOJ until May 1, 2017 to file a brief stating its position.  Aside from the uncertainty of whether the DOJ pursues its appeal, another issue is whether the Department of Labor intends to simply repeal the new rule, or issue an alternative rule.  The current salary threshold below which workers qualify for overtime wages is just $23,660 per year.  Millions of workers will be impacted by the future of the overtime rule and their fates hang in the balance.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Overtime and Wage Disputes

If you have an employment concern or wage dispute issue, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. have the experience to help you achieve an optimal outcome. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation about your case or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia and we serve clients in Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Philadelphia Passes Wage Equity Bill

By ,

SPG

In an effort to close the wage gap between men and women, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney recently signed a bill preventing employers from asking applicants about their salary history. The Wage Equity Bill makes Philadelphia the first major American city to ban employers from asking candidates what they were paid at previous jobs. Companies in violation of the new ordinance face fines of up to $2,000.

The bill, first introduced in September 2016, is designed to eliminate the income disparity between men and women. According to a 2015 United States Census Bureau report, women make 79 cents for every dollar that men make. This discrepancy exists regardless of experience, education, or industry. The Pew Research Center also reports that as of 2015, women earn 83% of men’s hourly wages.

The rationale behind the bill is that if women are paid less than what they deserve at beginning of their careers, and potential employers base their salary on previous jobs, they will never catch up to their male counterparts. Though similar legislation already exists in Massachusetts, Philadelphia is the first major city to ban salary inquiries. New York State and Pennsylvania are also considering passing wage equity bills.

The City Council passed the bill with a unanimous vote, but it is already experiencing some pushback from one of the city’s largest employers – Comcast. The media giant, with headquarters in Center City Philadelphia, has already vowed to challenge the ban in court on grounds that it violates employers’ free speech. The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce also opposes the bill, saying it gives the perception that the city is “anti-business,” and discourages new employers from setting up shop in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Wage Disputes

The team of Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green understands the complexities of employment law matters. Our attorneys represent employees in all aspects of employment law, including wage disputes. Call our Center City Philadelphia offices today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys.

We serve clients throughout the Greater Philadelphia area including Delaware County, Montgomery County, Philadelphia County, and the towns of 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 and Haverford, as well as New Jersey.

Philadelphia FINRA Lawyers: UBS Seeks to Overturn FINRA Ruling

By ,

SPG

Swiss financial wirehouse UBS is seeking to vacate a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ruling and $18.5 million award on the basis that two out of three arbitrators on the case were not impartial. UBS claims that one of the clients involved in the case went against their financial recommendations, a decision leading to substantial losses. However, the crux of USB’s case to overturn the award is their assertion that arbitrators failed to disclose concerning personal and professional financial details prior to their involvement in the case.

The case was initially decided in favor of the plaintiffs, a married couple, who won damages based on UBS sale of closed-end funds of Puerto Rican bonds, claiming unsuitability and breach of fiduciary duty. The claimants also accuse UBS of violating Puerto Rico’s own financial statutes. The couple initiated their arbitration a year after the Puerto Rican bond market collapsed. They allege that UBS misled clients about the potential vulnerability of their investments, while artificially inflating the local demand for bonds.

A FINRA three-member arbitration panel found that UBS failed in their obligation to these clients. FINRA is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the integrity of broker-dealer industry and protecting investors. FINRA is not a part of the government, but is authorized by Congress. FINRA supervises more than 635,000 brokers and 3,900 securities firms.

Philadelphia FINRA Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Resolve the Toughest Business Law Cases

Philadelphia FINRA lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green bring experience and knowledge to business law cases. If you are seeking representation in a FINRA matter, call our Philadelphia offices today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to discuss your situation.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers: Third Circuit Rules That Overtime Class Action Cannot Proceed In Arbitration

By ,

SPG

Recently, the Third Circuit weighed in on the issue of whether it is up to courts or arbitrators to decide if a class action lawsuit should be adjudicated in court, or in an arbitral forum. This case also dealt with the issue of whether an employment agreement that is silent on the issue of class arbitration permits employees to proceed on a class-wide basis on that basis. In Opalinski v. Robert Half International, the 3rd Circuit sided against the plaintiffs who wished to proceed on a class wide basis in arbitration. The case involved employees of the placement firm, Robert Half.

The plaintiffs were two former staffing managers at Robert Half in New Jersey. The men claim that they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay, and wrongfully denied such pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defense argued that when the men signed their employment contracts, they waived their right to resolve employment disputes in court. Their contracts provided that such disputes must be submitted to arbitration. However, their contracts were silent in regards to class wide arbitration. The two men brought an action on behalf of themselves and other putative class members who were denied overtime pay.

Shortly after filing the claim, a United States Dihttps://overtimestrict Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the employees’ individual claims. However, the district court determined that the arbitral forum had jurisdiction to decide whether class wide arbitration was permissible.  The arbitrator found that such claims could proceed on a class basis in arbitration – and when the defendant sought to overturn this ruling in district court, the trial court sided with the plaintiffs.  Subsequently, the defendant appealed this ruling and the 3rd Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the decision lies with the courts. The United States Supreme Court then declined to hear the case on appeal. After the case was remanded, the district court granted Robert Half’s motion to dismiss, finding that parties cannot be compelled to submit to class wide arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding such.

The plaintiffs appealed this decision yet again, and the 3rd Circuit recently ruled against them, finding it had already “explicitly decided,” in a precedential opinion in this same case, that the question of arbitrability of class claims is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in All Types of Wage Dispute Cases

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we routinely handle FLSA claims involving unpaid overtime. Our respected Philadelphia wage dispute lawyers are prepared to answer whatever questions you may have. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.