Category: Discrimination

UPS Settles Religious Discrimination Case for $4.9 Million

By ,

In the largest class religious discrimination settlement in the history of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the United Parcel Service (UPS) has agreed to pay the EEOC $4.9 million to resolve a lawsuit claiming that the company was biased against current and prospective employees who wear beards and long hair for religious reasons.

The lawsuit alleged that the company’s uniform and appearance guidelines that employees are required to follow are biased against certain religious groups.

In addition to refusing to hire individuals who had beards and long hair, UPS failed to provide these employees with the same opportunities as other employees. For example, UPS only allowed employees with religious-related beards and long hair to work in nonsupervisory jobs that did not involve any customer contact. In addition, they were not considered for promotions and were not provided with faith-based work accommodations, according to the EEOC.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that UPS had to establish a $4.4 million claims fund for the workers who brought the case to the EEOC, as well as a class of other claimants that the EEOC has identified.

With the remaining $500,000 of the $4.9 million settlement, a reserve fund must be established for claimants who have not yet been identified by either party. UPS must also revisit its application forms and religious accommodations processes, and make the appropriate changes.

Religious Charges Have Doubled Over the Past Two Decades

According to the executive director for the American Association for Access, Equity, and Diversity, since 1997 the number of religious charges filed with the EEOC has doubled. As a result, she said, their organization will be offering a wide range of training programs that will address racial and ethnic intolerance.

Religious freedom is one of the fundamental rights afforded to all citizens of this country, and it must be protected, a judicial analyst for the religious freedom advocacy group Focus on the Family pointed out.

Employers have a responsibility to make religious accommodations that ensure reasonable accommodations for employees, while making sure that it does not impose an unreasonable hardship on the business, according to a Senior Vice President for the Center for Workplace Compliance.

If wearing a beard or long hair presents a safety issue, it could jeopardize the safety of the worker and pose an undue hardship on the employer. For example, if the business involves the use of machinery that poses a constant risk of a caught-in/between accident.

It is important that employers understand that the EEOC will continue to closely examine decisions related to religious discrimination.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Discrimination Cases

If your religious rights have been violated, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of 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. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Jury Awards $6M to Teva Executive in Discrimination Lawsuit

By ,

An executive at Teva Pharmaceuticals was recently awarded $6 million by a federal jury in a discrimination lawsuit. The plaintiff was a senior director for the Israeli-based company and had worked for the company since 2001. He was fired from the company in 2016, when he was 58 years old. He alleged that he was wrongfully terminated because of his age and national origin.

Details of the lawsuit allege that the plaintiff’s supervisor had a history of making anti-American comments. For example, he stated that the United States did a poor job of providing adequate military support to Israel in the conflict with the Middle East. According to the plaintiff, the Israeli supervisors did not provide American employees with information when it was requested, and they told him that hiring decisions were made based on employees’ ages. In addition, the Israeli supervisors regularly requested additional data about American employees.

In response to the perceived unfair treatment, a group of American employees filed a report alleging cultural bias. The plaintiff also stated that the Israeli supervisors micromanaged the American employees. After reviewing the report, the higher-ups at the company terminated the plaintiff for deficient performance, even though he had never received a negative performance review in his tenure with the company.

The company made a request for a summary judgment, but the request was denied as the Pennsylvania federal trial court found that there was enough evidence to send the case to trial. Employers can claim reverse discrimination or prevent a discrimination claim if they can provide accurate reasons for the employment decisions that they made, including detailed documentation for their decision-making process.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Discrimination Cases

If your employee rights have been violated or you have been discriminated against by another employee, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will review the details of your case and recommend the best legal course of action. 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 and New Jersey.

Expanded Definition of “Sex” Protects Rights of LGBTQ Community in Pennsylvania

By ,

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission recently released new guidelines for handling discrimination complaints based on gender identity or sexual orientation. The Commission expanded its legal definition of “sex” to include not only the individual’s biological sex, but also his or her sexual orientation, gender expression, gender transition, and gender identity. As a result, LGBTQ Pennsylvanians may now file civil complaints with the Commission if they believe that they have been denied employment, education, housing opportunities, or public accommodations on the basis that identify as LGBTQ.

More Comprehensive Legislation Needed

While this change is an important step for LGBTQ rights, it does not take the place of comprehensive, state-wide legislation, according to the advocacy group, Equality PA. Since the 1990s when the laws were updated, the General Assembly declined to change the laws on several occasions. Local municipalities, including Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, have passed ordinances that help to add gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes. However, a proposal in Harrisburg may jeopardize those laws.

Many people already assumed that protections were in place, so the updated guidelines bring the law in line with protections that people thought already existed. Prior to the updated guidelines, Pennsylvanians who wanted to pursue legal action against an employer for discrimination had to file a Title VII lawsuit against their employer. However, unlike those listed in the Human Relations Act, anti-discrimination protections under Title VII do not apply to retail stores, restaurants, and other public accommodations.

The Commission received thousands of comments from Pennsylvania residents, ranging from concerns over religious liberty to claiming that the proposal would expose women and children to sexual assaults in public restrooms. The Commission stated that the Religious Freedom Protection Act prohibits governments from placing a significant burden on the “free exercise of religion,” and the law does not apply to private businesses. Burden is defined as a government action that results in the following:

  • Constrains or inhibits conduct or expression mandated by a person’s sincerely held religious beliefs
  • Curtails a person’s ability to express adherence to that person’s religious faith
  • Denies a person a reasonable opportunity to engage in those activities that are fundamental to that person’s religion
  • Compels conduct or expression that violates a mandatory tenet of a person’s religious faith

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Claims Involving LGBTQ Discrimination

If your rights have been discriminated against due to your gender identity or sexual orientation, contact the Philadelphia business 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 conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Expanded Definition of “Sex” Protects Rights of LGBTQ Community in Pennsylvania
  Other posts by

Supreme Court Ruling States That ADEA Applies to Public Employers with Less Than 20 Employees

By ,

A new unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido states that all public employers in every state must now comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), regardless of how many or how few individuals the organization employs.

Prior to 1974, the ADEA only applied to private employers, which meant that employees of public entities were not protected by law against age discrimination. In 1974, Congress amended the ADEA to include a wider range of employers. Specifically, Congress modified the definition of “employer” to include public employers that had twenty or more employees. However, since the amendment was made, courts interpreted the definition in ways that prevented certain states and political subdivisions from being subject to the ADEA.

In Mount Lemmon, two seasoned fire fighters from Mount Lemmon, Arizona were terminated after budget cuts. The two firefighters claimed that they were discriminated against due to their age, and that the fire department was in violation of the ADEA.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) agreed, but the federal district court found in favor of the fire department, because it was a public employer with fewer than 20 employees.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, stating that the language of the ADEA created a distinction between a “person” employer, who must have at least twenty employees, and a public employer, to whom the 20 employee threshold does not apply. Other circuit courts likewise found the language ambiguous. The Supreme Court granted a review of the case due to the circuit split.

The key issue in the case had to do with the phrase “also means” in the definition clause, and whether it added new categories of employers, or simply clarified the employees mentioned in the clause. The firefighters argued that the wording added new categories of employees, while the Fire District claimed that the language clarified the term “person” to include any organized group of persons, which includes state and local employers.

The Supreme Court found that the phrase, “also means” is additive in nature. As a result, state and political subdivisions are considered an additional category of employers, and thus do not need to satisfy the 20 employee threshold.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Age Discrimination Cases

Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. protect employees who have been discriminated against due to their age. To set up 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 Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

PA District Court Holds that Employer Had Legitimate Nondiscriminatory Reason for Termination in Age Discrimination Case

By ,

In Terrell v. Main Line Health, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-3102, 2018 WL 2462005 (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2018) Plaintiff, an employee at Defendant’s Hospital for thirty-five years, was terminated from her position as operating room secretary. Plaintiff alleges that her employer terminated her because of her age. Defendant countered and argued that Plaintiff was terminated for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Specifically, Defendant alleged that Plaintiff accessed information regarding a co-worker in violation of Defendant’s polices relating to patient privacy and in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission (“PHRC”). Defendants ultimately moved for summary judgment.

To succeed on an age discrimination claim based on disparate impact, a plaintiff must demonstrate that age “was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer’s adverse decision.” In age discrimination cases, it is not sufficient to simply show that age was “a motivating factor” in the adverse employment action. Rather, a plaintiff must demonstrate that age was a determinative factor or “the ‘but for’ cause of the employers adverse decision.” Age discrimination may be established by direct or indirect evidence. Regardless of the method of proof, “the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion to establish that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer’s adverse actions. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in ADEA cases, the plaintiff must show (1) that the plaintiff was forty years of age or older; (2) that the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; (3) that the plaintiff was qualified for the position in question; and (4) that the plaintiff was ultimately replaced by another employee who was sufficiently younger to support an inference of discriminatory animus. Plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case of age discrimination.

Accordingly, the burden shifted to Defendant to produce a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination. Defendant then produced the evidence that Plaintiff twice accessed information regarding a co-worker in violation of Defendant’s polices relating to patient privacy and in violation of the HIPAA. Therefore, the burden went back to Plaintiff to establish the proffered reason was merely pretext.

Plaintiff did not challenge the allegation that she accessed information regarding co-workers. Rather, she argued that a factfinder could disbelieve Defendants’ articulated legitimate reason for terminating her because her “two business-related data accesses absolutely do not fall into the categories of conduct required for termination.” The Court ultimately ruled that Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the proffered reason for her termination were pre-textual and that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

For more information, call our employment discrimination lawyers in Philadelphia at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on PA District Court Holds that Employer Had Legitimate Nondiscriminatory Reason for Termination in Age Discrimination Case
  Other posts by

Third Circuit Splits from Other Circuit Courts in Age Discrimination Suit

By ,

On January 10, 2017, the Third Circuit ruled in favor of a group of fired employees (“Employees”) over age 50 in an age discrimination suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).  Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 849 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 2017). The Employees sued Pittsburgh Glass Works LLC (“Employer”) claiming that a layoff of 100 workers disproportionately affected employees who were 50 and over. The lower court refused to allow evidence from Employees relating to the disparate impact of a subgroup of those 50 and over because it did not establish any discriminatory effect on the entire class of workers, those 40 and over, and thus was counterproductive to a claim under the ADEA. The Third Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling and found in favor of Employees thus splitting from other circuit courts, which have found that disparate treatment of employees within the protected class is not a viable claim under the ADEA.

The Third Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision because it viewed the practical implications of the case differently, and, more importantly, it had a different interpretation of the text of the ADEA. First, the Court interpreted the ADEA as prohibiting discrimination based on an employee’s age, not on the employee being a member of the protected class of people aged 40 or older. This finding is contrary to the other circuit courts which focused on the ADEA’s protection of a protected class of people aged 40 or older, not the protection of variably aged individuals within that protected class. Second, the Third Circuit found that preventing the protection of individuals within the protected class merely due to policy reasons, such as employer liability, is equivalent to trying to amend the ADEA. Further, the Court asserted that its opinion reflects the desires of Congress as clearly stated in the text of the ADEA to protect those aged 40 and older from age discrimination by employers.

For more information, call our employment discrimination lawyers in Philadelphia at The Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

Eastern District of PA Reinforces Elements of Racial Discrimination Claim against Employer

By ,

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania maintained and emphasized the requisite elements to sustain a claim for racial discrimination by an employee against their former employer. Jordan v. Staffing Plus, Inc., No. CV 17-4020, 2018 WL 3046612, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 20, 2018). Plaintiff Dominique Jordan (“Jordan”) brought a claim for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after he was terminated by his former employer Staffing Plus, Inc. At some point while still an employee of Staffing Plus, Jordan was arrested and faced charges that were later dropped. However after being arrested, several local news media outlets began reporting on the arrest. Jordan alleged that Staffing Plus made no investigation into the veracity of the allegations and proceeded to terminate his employment based on the news coverage. In his statement, Jordan claimed that he would not have been fired under similar circumstances if he were “pale skinned or Caucasi[a]n” and was terminated because he was “black.”

Staffing Plus filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. To sustain a claim for racial discrimination a party must plead facts to support the elements that (1) the plaintiff is a member of a racial minority (2) there was intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant and (3) discrimination concerning one or more of the activities enumerated in the statute, which includes the right to make and enforce contracts. The Court granted Staffing Plus’s Motion for Summary Judgment because Jordan alleged no facts to support the second and third elements of a racial discrimination claim. The Court pointed to the complete lack of factual allegations regarding any pattern of racial derogatory statements or discriminatory comments made by Staffing Plus. Jordan did not allege that any other contractors of different races were treated more favorably after being arrested or being subjected to negative media coverage. The Court found that Jordan relied “solely on his own bare assertions” and courts have consistently held that “such bare assertions of subjective belief are insufficient to establish an inference of discrimination.” In civil rights cases a court is required to give a party an opportunity to amend their claim after dismissal, but because Plaintiff’s claim had already been dismissed and amended, the Court did not grant further leave to amend.

For more information, call our employment discrimination lawyers in Philadelphia at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Eastern District of PA Reinforces Elements of Racial Discrimination Claim against Employer
  Other posts by

Eastern District of PA Upholds Employment Claim Release in Severance Agreement

By ,

On May 9, 2018 the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment against an employee who brought race and age discrimination claims against her former employer after she signed a release of claims in her severance agreement. Warren v. Mastery Charter Sch., No. CV 17-4782, 2018 WL 2129505, at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 2018). Plaintiff was a social worker in her forties with a master’s degree who worked for Mastery Charter Schools from 2011 through 2016. Her contracts with her employer were year to year and were typically renewed at the end of each year. In spite of consistently positive performance reviews over her first several years working for her employer, at the end of the 2016 school year Mastery chose not to renew Plaintiff’s contract based on allegations of poor performance and communication issues. The day before Plaintiff’s final day of work, Mastery offered her a severance agreement which also contained a release and waiver of any and all employment claims for her to review. The agreement offered significant benefits—including four weeks of additional pay—that it would otherwise not have been available to Plaintiff. Further Plaintiff was offered twenty one days to review and consider the offer, as well as the opportunity to revoke the agreement within seven days if she so chose. The agreement suggested in three different locations that Plaintiff consult with an attorney about the terms and frequently used bold lettering to indicate that the agreement should be carefully read.

Plaintiff alleged that her deteriorating relationship with Mastery had caused her significant stress, depression, and anxiety. Plaintiff alleged that her growing emotional distress caused her to fear if she did not accept the agreement that Mastery would seek to interfere and prevent her future employment elsewhere. Plaintiff signed the agreement on the twenty first day, claiming she felt she had no choice but to sign. Plaintiff then filed a complaint against Mastery for employment discrimination based on age and race on October 25, 2017.

The Court relied on the rule that an employee may release employment discrimination claims against an employer so long as the release is made “knowingly and willfully.” Coventry v. U.S. Steel Corp., 856 F.2d 514, 522 (3d Cir. 1988). The Court relied on precedent to establish that although the Plaintiff may have been undergoing stress it did not negate her knowing and willful agreement to the release and waiver. Further the Court found that the agreement itself was written in a manner calculated to be understood and was sufficiently clear for the Plaintiff to understand what she was agreeing to in signing the release. The Court held that the presence of some legal jargon and long sentences was not sufficient basis to claim the release was not in a manner calculated to be understood. The Court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of Mastery and upheld the validity of the release.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

  Category: Business Law, Discrimination
  Comments: Comments Off on Eastern District of PA Upholds Employment Claim Release in Severance Agreement
  Other posts by

Third Circuit Affirms Denial of Injunction Blocking Transgender Bathroom Policy

By ,

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction that would prohibit a school district from continuing its practice of allowing transgender students to use the bathroom and locker rooms of the sex by which they identify. Doe by & through Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., No. 17-3113, 2018 WL 2355999, at *1 (3d Cir. May 24, 2018). The claim was brought by parents of several cisgender students who claimed that such policy of the Boyertown Area School District violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy, their right to access to educational opportunities, programs, and benefits, and their Pennsylvania common law right to privacy preventing intrusion while using bathrooms and locker rooms. Doe by & through Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 276 F. Supp. 3d 324 (E.D. Pa. 2017), aff’d, No. 17-3113, 2018 WL 2355999 (3d Cir. May 24, 2018). The policy had been implemented since the beginning of the 2016-17 academic year, the plaintiffs sought the school district return to the prior policy requiring students to use any private facilities associated with their biological sex assigned at birth.

After reviewing the testimony of the students whose parents brought the complaint, testimony from a transgender student at the Boyertown Area Senior High School, and testimony from Dr. Scott Leibowitz, an expert in gender dysphoria and gender identity issues in children and adolescents, the trial court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the plaintiff students “did not have a constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs.” Much of the emphasis by the court was predicated on the fact that the plaintiffs, if they were uncomfortable sharing private facilities under the policy, could have used private stalls or an alternative facility like the nurse’s office.

The plaintiffs failed to meet the “particularly heavy burden” of showing they were entitled to the preliminary injunction as they did not seek a return to the status quo but a change in a policy that stood for a year.  Further the plaintiffs had not sufficiently shown that they were likely to suffer “irreparable injury” if the injunction was not issued as the policy had been around for almost a year when they filed their complaint. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction “for the reasons that the Court explained in its exceptionally well reasoned Opinion”. Doe by & through Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., No. 17-3113, 2018 WL 2355999, at *1 (3d Cir. May 24, 2018).

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

Court Defines Supervisor Under Title VII

By ,

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a precedential opinion interpreting what it means to be a supervisor in a hostile work environment case. The Court found that a supervisor is someone who controls a sizeable amount of the hours employees work, and/or someone who determines whether employees will be assigned work.

Moody v. Atlantic City Board of Education

Employee Michelle Moody was hired by the Atlantic City Board of Education (BOE) to serve as a substitute custodian in 2011. Moody alleged that she was unhappy with the unsteady nature of her employment, as she was only gainfully employed when the primary custodian could not work. She wanted to work more hours and raised her concerns with a member of the BOE, who suggested that she speak to the custodial foremen of different districts. The BOE member told her that these foremen were responsible for delegating authority to select which substitute custodian would fill in at schools in their respective districts.

Moody then contacted 10 foremen from different school districts, including one named Maurice Marshall. Marshall allegedly began harassing Moody immediately after she started work. According to the Court’s opinion, he allegedly suggested that he would give her more work if she performed sexual favors for him. After a litany of disturbing incidents, including explicit text messages, unwanted sexual contact, and unwanted visits to her home, Moody succumbed to Marshall’s unwanted advances. Although she never received more work hours, after reporting Marshall, her work hours steadily declined.

Determining the Meaning of Supervisor

Moody filed a claim in the District of New Jersey, which was ultimately dismissed on grounds that Marshall was not her supervisor, and that she suffered no tangible adverse employment action. The Third Circuit reversed that decision after an extensive review of Marshall’s role in assigning work to other employees. The Court examined a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that interpreted the term of supervisor. Ultimately, the Third Circuit determined that Marshall had the power to decide whether Moody worked at all and had authority to set her hours, falling under the Supreme Court’s definition of a supervisor. The court also found that during the times Moody was chosen to fill in at Marshall’s school, he was her immediate supervisor.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle All Types of Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Employment Claims

If you have suffered adverse employment action due to sexual harassment or discrimination, you may be entitled to compensation. To arrange a consultation with one of our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., call us today at 215-574-0600, or contact us online.