Category: Discrimination

U.S. Supreme Court Shields Religious Schools from Discrimination Lawsuits

By ,

On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot intervene in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools if those teachers have been entrusted to deliver religious instruction. The ruling has broad implications, potentially stripping away employment law protections from more than 300,000 teachers working at religious schools across the country. It may also impact other employees at Catholic hospitals, camps, and other religious workplaces.

The court reviewed two cases involving job bias claims filed by two Catholic schoolteachers in California. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the plaintiff alleged age discrimination bias because she was told days before her 65th birthday that her contract would not be renewed. In St. James School v. Biel, the teacher was terminated after she requested time off for surgery and chemotherapy treatment. Biel subsequently died of cancer, and her husband continued with the litigation on her behalf.

In writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated that the First Amendment protects the rights of religious institutions to decide for themselves, free from state interference and matters of church government, as well as those of faith and doctrine. The religion clauses in the First Amendment provide that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Alito referred back to a 2012 Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, where the Court ruled that teachers holding the title of minister could not sue for job bias. This ministerial exception bars employees from suing their religious school employers for discrimination.

Justice Alito stated that even though the Catholic schoolteachers in this case did not have the title of minister, their job functions were essentially the same because they were entrusted with providing religious instruction at least part of the week and prayed with the children. Prior to this case reaching the Supreme Court, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco allowed the lawsuits after ruling that the teachers were secular, rather than religious, employees.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that both teachers primarily taught secular subjects and were not required to be Catholic. Justice Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Implications for Future Employment Discrimination Cases

The ruling represents a win for Evangelical religious schools, as well as Catholic institutions. At the same time, it is a major setback for the LGBTQ community whose members gained protections against employment discrimination in a recent Supreme Court ruling. There are numerous state and federal laws protecting individuals from employment discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities in Employment Act. These laws and others make it illegal for employers to treat workers unfairly simply because of their race, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability. Regarding the cases of the two Catholic schoolteachers in California, there was evidence that age and disability discrimination occurred; however, that evidence was not in dispute. The issue was the constitutionality of applying employment law to religious institutions.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor noted that, with this ruling, so long as the employer determines that an employee’s duties are vital to carrying out the mission of the church, the employer can make employment decisions based on a person’s skin color, age, disability, sex, or any other protected trait for reasons having nothing to do with religion, permitting religious entities to discriminate widely and with impunity for reasons wholly unconnected to religious beliefs.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Clients with Complex Legal Challenges

The recent Supreme Court ruling confirms that the field of employment law is continually being revised. In matters of discrimination, the employer-employee relationship can be extraordinarily complex. Our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can help with your employment matter. To arrange an initial consultation, contact us online or call us at 215-574-0600. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court Shields Religious Schools from Discrimination Lawsuits
  Other posts by

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Prohibits Discrimination Against LGBTQ Workers

By ,

Discrimination LGBTQ

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling declaring that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unequivocally applies to homosexual and transgender workers. Although about half of the states in the U.S. have laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ citizens in the workplace, this historic decision clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited nationwide. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers against discrimination during any phase of the employment process, including recruiting, hiring, training, assigning tasks, compensation, promotion, and firing.

According to the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law, more than eight million Americans in the workforce identity as LGBTQ, and nearly four million of them live in states that lack laws to protect them from workplace discrimination.

In writing the 6-3 opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that sex plays a necessary role in the decision, which is exactly what Title VII forbids. In Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Cases Considered by the Court

 The Supreme Court ruling considered several cases brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit where employers admitted to firing employees because they were homosexual or transgender. These cases included:

  • Bostock v. Clayton, County, Georgia: Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare advocate. Under his leadership, the county won national awards for its accomplishments. After Mr. Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league, he was fired for conduct “unbecoming” to a county employee.
  • Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda: Donald Zarda was employed by Altitude Express for several seasons as a skydiving instructor. He was fired several days after mentioning at work that he was gay.
  • G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Aimee Stephens worked at Harris Funeral Homes Inc. in Michigan. While undergoing treatment for depression, he was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and began exploring the prospect of transitioning. After six years of service with the funeral home, Stephens wrote a letter to management explaining that she planned to live and work full-time as a woman. She was subsequently fired.

Each employee filed a lawsuit alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. The employers in each of these cases did not attempt to deny that they fired these employees for being gay or transgender. Rather, they contended that Title VII does not apply to discrimination on the basis of being homosexual or transgender. Also, the employers argued that the legislators who drafted Title VII would not have expected the law to prohibit discrimination against homosexual or transgender persons.

In response, Justice Gorsuch wrote that while those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result, Title VII has been expanded in the past to protect the rights of pregnant employees or men subjected to harassment at work. Therefore, Title VII can be interpreted so as to protect the rights of LGBTQ employees.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Defend the Rights of LGBTQ Workers

The Supreme Court has made it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ employees in the workplace. If you or someone you know endured discrimination at work during any phase of employment, contact the experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will defend your rights to the fullest extent of the law. Call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out our contact form to schedule an initial consultation. We represent workers throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey from our Philadelphia office.

Philadelphia Employers Banned from Requesting Salary History from Applicants

By ,

According to a recent federal appeals court ruling, employers in Philadelphia may no longer request salary history information from job applicants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit partially reversed a lower court’s 2018 decision that allowed employers to ask about salary history but prohibited them from using the information to determine an employee’s new salary.

In 2017, the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce sued the city, arguing that the Philadelphia law violated the employer’s First Amendment rights. Mayor Jim Kenney, and others who supported the law, said that the practice of requesting a salary history perpetuates the cycle of discrimination resulting in women with lower salaries than men. In fact, studies show that women make only 80 cents for every dollar that a man earns, despite the fact that women make up close to 50 percent of the workforce and are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of families in this country who have children. For women of color, this gap is even higher. They are hopeful that this recent ruling will put an end to that cycle.

Law Expected to be Enforced Soon

It is unclear when city officials will begin enforcing the new law, but it will likely be soon, as they have been given the green light to do so. The law will be enforced by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, and employers who violate the law may face steep fines and litigation. The Chamber of Commerce claims that the law makes it more difficult for companies to determine what a competitive salary offer should be, particularly in such a tight labor market. Although the Chamber can petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision, it is unlikely that it will be overturned.

According to the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, Philadelphia has implemented a number of work-protection legislation in recent years. This latest law is about equality and protecting people’s rights. People have argued that the law will not solve the problem of wage inequality, said a former city councilman, but there is no way to know that unless the law is given a chance.

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

 If a prospective employer requested to see your salary history during the interview process, this is a violation of your rights. The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. have a proven track record in reaching successful outcomes for clients who have a range of employment issues, including those related to fair compensation. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Coronavirus Outbreak Causes Major Employment Issues in the U.S.

By ,

As the Coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to spread, companies have closed, workers are required to stay home, and travel has been restricted. In addition to the obvious health concerns, COVID-19 is having a major impact on the U.S. economy. As the outbreak continues to impact companies in the U.S. and worldwide, legal experts are urging companies to review their legal contracts, employment agreements, and handbooks to ensure that they are protected from breaches in cybersecurity and other negative exposure.

U.S. companies conduct a significant amount of business with manufacturers in China. However, the outbreak has disrupted the supply chain, causing significant delays in the delivery of contracted goods. U.S companies that are awaiting goods from China should review their business contracts to determine what their rights are if their goods are delivered late, or not at all. However, despite what the contracts say, Chinese suppliers may obtain a force majeure certificate, which exempts exporters from fulfilling contractual agreements with overseas buyers as a result of the pandemic.

Impact of Coronavirus on U.S. Employers

President Trump signed an executive order suspending entry into the United States of all foreign nationals who were in China within 14 days of arriving in the U.S. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens are exempt from the order. Those not exempt are subject to a two-week mandatory quarantine upon their arrival in the U.S. It is unlikely that travelers who contract the virus will receive employment protection, unless they were traveling for business or were subjected to a mandatory quarantine. If this is the case, the U.S. company would be required to continue paying the affected individual.

Symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shortness of breath, and coughing. If a worker shows any of these signs, and was in an area with confirmed cases of the virus, the employer should immediately contact the communicable disease section of the state department of health. It is imperative that the worker be tested to confirm whether he or she has the coronavirus.

Workers who are returning from China may have be asymptomatic. Employers should consider requesting that the employer remain home for 10 to 14 days until the incubation period has passed. However, if the worker alleges that he or she was forced to stay home, he or she may allege that it was due to a perceived disability, which would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the decision was based on the worker’s travel history, it is unlikely that the employee will be able to defend their claim.

Employers can avoid liability and claims of discrimination by focusing on their travel history, as opposed to their national origin, and paying their workers so they do not suffer damages from missed days of work due to the virus. Employers should try to be accommodating to employees who were quarantined and are reintegrating into the workforce.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Employers with Employment Issues Related to the Coronavirus

If you have concerns about how the COVID-19 will impact employment law, the Philadelphia employment 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.

Employers Cannot Use Salary History to Justify Lower Pay for Women

By ,

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case from Fresno County, California regarding lower pay for women during an en banc session. The Court concluded in February 2020 that lower pay for women cannot be justified based on their previous pay.

How May Employers Determine Employee Pay?

Under the Equal Pay Act, employers are only allowed to determine employee pay based on four factors:

  • An established seniority system
  • An established merit system
  • A system that measures salary based on quantity or quality
  • Any factor other than sex

Fresno County Schools had a seniority system and a merit system. However, the Court determined the county applied that system improperly under the Equal Pay Act.

What was the Decision?

The Ninth Circuit Court determined that previous pay from a different job cannot fall under the last catch-all “factor other than sex” because the factor’s must be job-related. The case involved a math consultant with the school system who inadvertently discovered she was making less than her male colleagues. The school system used her previous salary, added five percent, and placed her on the corresponding section of the pay scale. She received an extra $600 for her master’s degree, but her salary was calculated based on an entirely different job.

How Does the Ruling Apply to Your Business?

The Ninth Circuit Court noted that other federal courts have come to inconsistent rulings. Regardless, this case has value wherever your employer is located. As a result, employers must be careful that if there is any pay discrepancy between employees, it’s based on job-related reasons.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employers and Employees Concerned About Equal Pay

Our Philadelphia business and employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. will work with you on any equal pay case. Contact us online or call us at 215-574-0600 for an initial consultation. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment
  Comments: Comments Off on Employers Cannot Use Salary History to Justify Lower Pay for Women
  Other posts by

Google Employees Win the Right to Sue

By ,

Since last November, Google employees have been pressuring the company to end its mandatory arbitration policy, which requires workers to take any legal dispute they have with the company to arbitration. Because there is no judge or jury, and very little government oversight, workers are less likely to win their cases. If they do, their compensation is much less than what they would have gotten if they had the opportunity to go to court. Earlier this month, Google changed its policy and will end mandatory arbitration, effective March 21. This expands a previous decision to only end mandatory arbitration in sexual assault or harassment cases. This is a significant win for Google employees.

Prior to this policy change, new employees were required to sign arbitration agreements when they were hired. Many companies in the United States require new employees to sign these agreements, which means that they cannot sue their boss if they are the victim of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, overtime violations, and job discrimination. When Google’s CEO ended the forced arbitration for sexual harassment and sexual assault, employees were encouraged, but they wanted the company to end forced arbitration for all types of disputes. In addition, they wanted the policy to extend to contractors and temporary workers as they make up over half of the company’s workforce.

Employees Fight for Wider Policy Changes

In a statement published by a group of Google employees, the group credited the company for changing the policy and allowing workers to access their civil rights through the public court system. However, they were disappointed that the policy does not require contract companies that provide Google with workers to follow the same policy. The group went on the say that they will continue to fight until forced arbitration is eliminated for all workers. Tech workers have gained influence recently and are using it to ensure that workers have a voice and are no longer silenced by unfair policies.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Offer Skilled Legal Counsel for Arbitration Issues

If your employer has a mandatory arbitration policy, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. We have a proven track record of reaching successful settlements in a wide range of cases, including those involving mandatory arbitration policies. Protecting your rights is our top priority. 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.

Riot Games Settles in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

By ,

League of Legends developer, Riot Games, will have to pay over $10 million to settle a class action lawsuit that was filed on behalf of approximately 1,000 women who worked for the company over the past five years. According to court documents, the plaintiffs alleged that the company established a clear pattern of discrimination and sexual harassment. In addition, female employees claimed that they did not receive equal compensation compared to their male counterparts. This was a violation of the California Equal Pay Act—many states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey have a similar law.

According to the terms of the settlement, each of the roughly 1,000 women who worked at Riot Games over the past five years is eligible to receive a portion of the settlement. The exact amount that each woman will receive depends on seniority, how long they worked at the company, and employment status, but most members of the class-action lawsuit will receive a minimum of $5,000. Full-time employees will receive more settlement money than part-time workers or contractors.

Investigation Reveals Sexist Culture

An investigation into the culture at Riot Games revealed a sexist environment where women were frequently exposed to “crotch grabbing,” “phantom humping,” and hot girl lists. Two women who initially sued Riot Games alleged that there were several women who did not receive equal pay, and who felt that their careers were being stifled by male employees. Several female employees alleged that they received pictures of the male genitalia. The lawsuit also accused the company of denying promotions to deserving female employees because they spoke out against the company’s male culture. In some cases, they were demoted or their benefits were withheld.

After Riot Games filed a motion to force plaintiffs into arbitration, over 150 employees walked out of the office to protest the motion. According to a Riot Games spokesperson, the company looks forward to resolving the lawsuit, and plans to demonstrate their commitment to creating an inclusive and supportive environment for all employees. However, several employees commented that the company’s efforts were overshadowed by the harmful workplace behavior and an ongoing pattern of filling senior positions with male employees.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Victims of Gender Discrimination

If you were discriminated against by your employer or another co-worker because of your gender, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Employment discrimination laws prohibit employers from harassing employers based on gender, and from retaliating against an employee for reporting discriminatory behavior. Our experienced legal team will ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation with one of our highly skilled employment lawyers, 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.

Supreme Court to Determine Whether Title VII Protections Include Sexual Orientation or Gender Status

By ,

In October 2019, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in a set of cases that could have a major impact on federal discrimination law, particularly as it applies to LGBTQ employees. The three cases involved two gay men and one transgender woman who were allegedly terminated because of their sexual orientation or gender status. According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not discriminate against an employee based on sex, race, national origin, or religion. The court will consider whether employers should be legally allowed to fire an employee simply because they are gay or transgender.

Case Facts

In the first case, a child-welfare coordinator for Clayton County, Georgia advocated for abused and neglected children. He was very successful at this job and loved helping underprivileged children. Yet, after his employer discovered he was gay, he was fired. Not only did he lose his job, but he lost his income and health insurance, which was devastating since he was fighting prostate cancer.

In the second case, a transgender woman who worked as a funeral director at the Harris Funeral Home in Livonia, Michigan decided to come out to her boss and co-workers and tell them about her gender identity. Two weeks after she wrote a letter to her boss explaining her situation, she was fired.

In the last case, a sky-diving instructor at Altitude Express went on tandem skydiving excursions with clients. He often informed female clients that he was gay in case they were uncomfortable about being strapped to a man during the tandem jump. The employee was fired after a female client claimed that he touched her inappropriately. However, according to employee, this never happened, and he was fired because of his sexual orientation.

Many of the Court’s conservative judges were skeptical about the arguments made by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and were opposed to finding that Title VII included protections for LGBTQ workers. However, they will have to examine the literal text of the law and consider the fact that the plaintiffs would not have been fired if they were straight. The more liberal justices will have to consider that, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was not likely that Congress intended it to prohibit against LGBTQ employees. In fact, homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association in 1964.

If the Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, discrimination cases involving LGBTQ workers will be treated the same as any other Title VII discrimination case. Employers will need to update their discrimination policies and train workers on how to comply with the new policies. If the Court rules against the plaintiffs, things will remain the same. Employers who already have anti-discrimination policies in place may continue to enforce them. The Court is expected to decide by June 2020.

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

If you were discriminated at the workplace due to your protected status, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will protect your rights and 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.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Supreme Court to Determine Whether Title VII Protections Include Sexual Orientation or Gender Status
  Other posts by

Federal Judge Grants U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Class Status in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

By ,

The U.S. Women’s National Team filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation (“USSF”) alleging that they do not receive equal pay compared to the men’s team. In addition, they argued that their work conditions are not as favorable as the men’s conditions. This has been an ongoing fight among female athletes for years. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner ruled in favor of the women’s soccer team, saying that the class representatives had standing to pursue a lawsuit and certified three classes, and that the female players were paid less per game compared to the male players.

According to team co-captain, Megan Rapino, the decision validated their equal-pay campaign. The judge’s decisions essentially rejected the USSF’s argument that there was no discrimination because of the number of female players who earned more than some of the men’s players during that time. However, according to Klausner, there was no case law to support the premise.

The USSF has argued that the differences in compensation between the men’s and women’s teams was due to varying pay structures in the collective bargaining agreements, which are negotiated by the players on the team. However, according to the lawsuit, the USSF charters more flights for male players, which means that they have more comfortable accommodations and opportunities for rest. The men also experience fewer incidences of lost luggage. This ruling may encourage the USSF and its players to revisit efforts to reach an out-of-court resolution.

The USSF’s president said that they are very committed to resolving the matter in a way that is fair. A spokesperson for the female players said that they are happy that the court has recognized the USSF’s discrimination against female players. It is a major step in the right direction in the fight to achieve equal pay. One of the classes is seeking an injunction to prevent future discrimination, and a second class looks to obtain back pay and punitive damages, both of which fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Victims of Gender Discrimination

If you were treated unfairly because of your gender, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. will work tirelessly to investigate the details of your case and ensure that your legal rights are protected. Our skilled legal team will not stop fighting for you until you are completely satisfied. 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.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Federal Judge Grants U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Class Status in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
  Other posts by