Category: Class Action

Why Should I Avoid Copying Another Business’s Contract Language?  

By ,

Every business should have a contract, often called Terms of Use or Privacy Policy, that is specific to their company, and includes detailed information about the parties involved, the goods or services that are being exchanged, and the details of the agreement. Start-up companies or entrepreneurs who are building a business may be tempted to use language from another company’s contract to avoid paying a lawyer to draft a new contract. Tempting as this may be, there are a number of reasons why this is highly discouraged. The cost of hiring a lawyer to generate a business contract will save you money in the long run and protect your company from lawsuits or regulatory investigations.

Reasons Why Copying a Contract is Discouraged

  • Bad Publicity: Negative media attention can be very damaging to a small company. Depending on how small the company is, it may not survive the bad publicity. A company can run into trouble if the contract they copied was drafted to comply with laws from another jurisdiction. In addition, it could be out of date or include protections for goods or services that are different from those provided by your company. This could leave the company vulnerable to lawsuits.
  • It could scare off investors: Potential investors may walk away if they find out that your company is involved in a lawsuit or is being investigated by state or federal regulators.
  • A strong contract distinguishes you from the competition: The terms and conditions of a contract should reflect the company’s mission and values. It does not need to contain complicated legal jargon. In fact, the best contracts are easy to read and understand, legally accurate, and on brand.
  • Copying a contract is illegal. Copying another company’s contract without their permission is a violation of copyright law. It also sets an example within the company that it is acceptable to break the rules.
  • The company’s entire user agreement could be invalidated. If it is discovered that a company copied another company’s legal contract, it could invalidate the contract and leave the company vulnerable to steep fines, class action lawsuits, and put the future of the organization at risk.

There are contract templates available online. However, they are often written by individuals who do not have a legal degree and are unqualified to write a business contract. Therefore, it is highly discouraged to go this route. Invest the time and money in hiring a business lawyer to draft a legal contract for your company.

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

If you are starting up a new company, or you require assistance with important legal documents for your existing company, do not hesitate to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We have extensive experience in drafting business contracts that are concise, legally accurate, and reflect your company’s brand and mission. 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.

Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court Decision Sparks Anti-Union Lawsuits in PA

By ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers protect employees’ rights.In the case of Janus v. AFSCME, the Supreme Court ruled that public sector unions could not charge public employees for agency fees, even though they are still required to bargain on their behalf. Union supporters argued that the decision would devastate organized labor, compromise their political power, and cause employees to leave their unions. The organizations representing the employees, including the Liberty Justice Center, say that they are simply fighting for the workers’ rights. Since the Janus ruling, at least nine lawsuits have been filed on behalf union workers in Pennsylvania.

In February of 2019, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Southwest Philadelphia employee who works for the State’s Department of Human Services. According to the lawsuit, the Janus decision states that it is illegal for the state to deduct dues from the employee’s paycheck. In addition, the employee should be refunded for the dues she paid, including those paid before the Janus decision, since she did not have the option of not joining the union.

Other Lawsuits Filed Against Unions

Other examples include a lawsuit that was filed by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on behalf of a bus driver who works for the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District. The bus driver sued his employer and his union for continuing to collect dues from him after the Janus ruling. A class action lawsuit was also filed by a group of teachers who claimed that the Pennsylvania State Education Association illegally collected union fees. The Fairness Center also filed a lawsuit on behalf of workers at Erie Water Works, who alleged poor representation. According to the spokesperson for the Liberty Justice Center, these cases are about protecting workers’ rights.

A representative of a company that tracks anti-union activity said that organizations generally follow a formula, where they find one disgruntled employee and make that person the face of a particular lawsuit. In the past, their campaigns to encourage public-sector employees to drop out of their unions have been ineffective. Only a small percentage of workers in Pennsylvania have left public-sector unions.

The union president of Local 668 in Harrisburg argued that these lawsuits cost the unions a great deal of time and money and distracts from being able to fight for a higher minimum wage and more comprehensive health care for workers.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protect Employees’ Rights

If you have questions about unions and your rights under federal and state employment laws, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at 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 throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Class Action, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court Decision Sparks Anti-Union Lawsuits in PA
  Other posts by

Comcast Contractor Ordered to Pay $7.5 Million in Unpaid Overtime

By ,

Philadelphia overtime claims lawyers secure overtime pay for workers. O.C. Communications is a national fulfillment contractor for low-voltage installations, which prides itself as having some of the best, most highly trained employees. However, according to a recent lawsuit, some of the company’s employees were not paid for the overtime hours they worked. In addition, the company did not allow meal breaks and did not reimburse employees for money spent on tools and other equipment that was used for work.

Employee Accusations

One O.C. Communications employee said that the company scheduled him to make 32 job stops in one day, where normally he was only assigned eight stops. In addition, his supervisor ordered him to work through his meals, which usually meant eating while driving, and he was expected to remain available via his cell phone at all times, so that he could immediately respond to work-related calls.

Another worker shared that he was not reimbursed for equipment he purchased for his job, including a wireless drill, drill bits, pliers, a staple gun, as well as boots and pants.

Failure to Pay Workers for Overtime Hours

O.C. Communications and Comcast Corp were both named in the federal class-action lawsuit.

In early March, both companies agreed to settle the lawsuit. As a result, the $7.5 million would be split among the roughly 4,500 techs involved in the lawsuit.

According to the legal team representing the plaintiffs, the workers had not been paid for 2.5 hours of off-the-clock work per day, and that the companies had violated state and federal laws, including a failure to compensate tech workers for piecework and overtime wages.

The lawsuit states that Comcast controlled the majority of O.C. Communications’ revenue stream. In addition, the company continuously monitored the work activities and work progress of all technicians throughout the day, using their mobile devices.

The suit further claimed that based on the call logs between O.C. Communications and Comcast, it appeared that the technicians were “fully integrated into the Comcast business.”

Settlement Agreement Reached

The plaintiffs considered the possibility that O.C. Communications would not be able to pay a significant amount of the damages, and that Comcast may not be held liable as a joint employer. However, after extensive litigation and the production of 1.5 million documents, the two companies agreed to settle the case.

Philadelphia Overtime Claims Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Secure Overtime Pay for Workers

If you have not been paid for the overtime hours you worked, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia overtime claims lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Our experienced legal team will work tirelessly to ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the maximum 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 in Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and across New Jersey.

Dittman v. UPMC Ruling – Pennsylvania’s Economic Loss Doctrine Permits Recovery for “Purely Pecuniary Damages” on Negligence Claims

By ,

In 2014, a group of employees from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UMPC) filed a class action lawsuit against the organization, claiming that a breach in data compromised sensitive personal employee information, including social security numbers, tax information, and confidential bank account information. The plaintiffs alleged that UMPC failed to adopt the appropriate security measures, which increased the risk of identity theft and other crimes.

In a landmark decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that employers have a legal duty to protect employee information that is stored on internet-accessible computer systems. In addition, by limiting the economic loss doctrine, claimants can sue for economic losses resulting from a failure to protect their personal data.

According to the plaintiffs involved in the Dittman v. UPMC case, as a condition of employment, they were required to provide certain personal information, including Social Security numbers and bank account information. As a result, the plaintiffs argued that UPMC had a duty to protect their information against the threat of identity theft crimes.

The plaintiffs alleged that UPMC breached this duty by failing to implement effective security measures, including encryption programs, firewalls, and adequate authentication protocols. The plaintiffs sought economic damages for losses associated with fraudulent tax returns, as well as the potential risk of identity theft crimes.

Significance of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Ruling

The Court’s decision in the Dittman v. UPMC case made the rule of law in Pennsylvania very clear. Employers who collect personal data must take reasonable measures to protect that information. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also adopted a wide interpretation of the economic loss doctrine, and found that employees may recover economic losses in a variety of tort actions. By limiting the economic loss doctrine, claimants can now sue for the economic losses resulting from a failure to protect personal data.

The Court’s decision also reflects the rise in cyberattacks, and the growing need for improved cybersecurity frameworks. The lower court found that employers should not be held responsible for security breaches that were not preventable. However, the PA Supreme Court overturned this argument, because companies are now expected to take advantage of the latest cybersecurity systems that protect confidential employee data.

Because of the expansive interpretation of the economic loss doctrine, defendants will not be able to rely on this line of defense to summarily dismiss negligence claims.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Legal Disputes

If your employer failed to take adequate security measures to protect your personal information against the threat of cyberattacks, contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protecting your rights is our top priority, and we will work tirelessly to secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and across New Jersey.

Supreme Court’s Decision Impacts Employee Rights

By ,

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority made a ruling that will likely have a considerable impact on employee rights in this country. In the case of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the court’s 5-4 decision brings attention to the issue of whether a company can require its employees to settle employment disputes through individual arbitration, rather than allowing them to combine their collective efforts to protest complaints including job discrimination, wage and hour disputes, and sexual harassment. The decision, which ruled in favor of employer, Epic Systems Corp., expands on a previous Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to avoid class-action lawsuits by enforcing contracts that require individual arbitration.

In making its decision, the Court had to interpret the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). According to the FAA, federal courts must enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including those that provide for individualized proceedings. The NLRA states that it is illegal for any contract to deny an employee the right to form or participate in labor organizations, to bargain collectively, or to engage in certain activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or “mutual aid and protection.” The court had to decide whether the no-group-arbitration clause provides adequate grounds to prohibit employees from pursuing individual arbitration.

The Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, ignited a debate among the liberal and conservative Justices, particularly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who described the decision as destructive to employee rights because it would prevent employees from unionizing. In his majority opinion, Gorsuch wrote that federal courts were instructed by Congress to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. Gorsuch also commented that Ginsberg’s objections are to policy, and those decisions are made by policymakers in those political branches. Gorsuch acknowledged that the FAA had a saving clause that urged courts to refrain from enforcing arbitration agreements that were illegal. However, the Court ruled that the FAA makes individual arbitration agreements enforceable and that the saving clause does not override the outcome.

Impact of Court’s Decision

There are millions of Americans whose employee contracts require individual arbitration over collective actions. Some argue this decision may allow employers to be less accountable to their employees. They also say it will make employees less likely to voice their concerns due to the high cost and significant amount of time and effort associated with individual arbitration. In her dissenting decision, Justice Ginsburg opined that a Congressional correction was needed in order to overturn the majority decision and protect employees. In addition to wage-related issues, this would also impact how sexual harassment in the workplace would be handled. Others believe that the decision will benefit employees because there will be an added incentive to ensure that there are fair arbitration agreements. In addition, arbitration is typically less costly than pursuing a case in court.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Guide Clients in Employment-Related Disputes

If you have questions about employment contracts, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

9th Circuit Panel Rules in Favor of Uber and Forces Plaintiffs to File Individually in Arbitration

By ,

In effort to have their employment status reclassified from independent contractor to employee, a group of Uber drivers filed a class action lawsuit against the ride sharing company. The drivers claimed they were misclassified based on their job requirements. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit panel overruled a lower court’s decision and decertified the class, meaning any Uber drivers who wish to continue to pursue legal action will be required to do so individually through arbitration.

All Uber drivers are hired as independent contractors. As a result, they are not reimbursed for items such as gasoline or vehicle maintenance, and they do not receive benefits or overtime pay. Uber’s employment agreement includes an arbitration clause, which states that the driver must pursue any legal claims against the employer through arbitration, as opposed to filing a lawsuit. Very few drivers attempt to contest the arbitration clause because they do not want to lose their job, or jeopardize their chances of being hired. However, a growing number of Uber drivers feel that the independent contractor classification is unfair and that they should be reclassified as employees.

Due to the number of Uber drivers who were pursuing legal action against the ride sharing company, they decided to consolidate their efforts and pursue a class action lawsuit. Ideally, this would save each driver time and money, while resulting in the best possible outcome for each driver. The class action was certified by the lower court and it proceeded in the court system. However, Uber appealed the ruling because they were aware of another case that was pending in the United States Supreme Court that could overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the company by upholding individual arbitration clauses, which in this case meant that ride sharing companies could require workers to waive their right to class actions and pursue arbitration instead. After the Superior Court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit had no choice but to decertify the class action brought by the Uber drivers and send it to arbitration.

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

If you are an independent contractor, and you believe that you should be classified as an employee, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment 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. We represent clients in employment disputes across Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

  Category: Class Action
  Comments: Comments Off on 9th Circuit Panel Rules in Favor of Uber and Forces Plaintiffs to File Individually in Arbitration
  Other posts by