Category: Employment Law

Second Woman Files EEOC Complaint Against DLA Piper Partner

By anthony, 4th December 2019

A former Human Resources (“HR”) manager with DLA Piper filed an anonymous complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against one of the company’s partners. The complaint alleges that the partner intimidated her, and that it got to the point where she felt afraid when they were in the office together. Despite a history of positive performance reviews, the HR manager was fired after she complained about the partner’s inappropriate behavior. This was the second woman to file an EEOC complaint against them.

The first complaint was filed against the firm by one of its junior partners, alleging that the partner sexually assaulted her on numerous occasions. In an open letter to the firm, she requested that she be released from the mandatory arbitration agreement so that she could pursue her claims in court. While the firm has not publicly responded to the arbitration request, they did announce that the partner had been let go. However, the junior partner was also put on leave, which her lawyer saw as a smear campaign against a female victim of sexual assault.

The new claimant says she was fired from DLA Piper after she complained about the partner’s inappropriate behavior. She alleged that she and other female employees at the firm felt uncomfortable being in an office alone with the partner, particularly if the door was closed. The details of her allegations are included in a supplemental letter that was sent to the EEOC as part of the initial charge. She is requesting that the EEOC investigate her complaint in conjunction with the initial complaint that was filed by the first complainant and expand the investigation to include a proposed class. According to the letter, there is a pattern of intimidation and retaliation for speaking out against sexually inappropriate behavior by male employees against the proposed class.

Examples of Alleged Abuse

The former HR Manager said that she was ordered to fire an administrative assistant who was over the age of 40, and who had a record of positive performance reviews. Rather than fire her, she transferred the employee to a different office. The partner was allegedly furious at the manager for not following his orders and threatened her by saying that she would be dealt with. Another female employee said that the partner expected women to tolerate his behavior if he paid them extra cash.

DLA Piper released a statement saying that the latest allegations were designed to distract from an ongoing investigation involving the junior partner that was fired. They deny that the partner sexually assaulted or harassed any female employees and was only guilty of poor judgment for having a relationship with an employee.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protect Victims of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace

If you or a loved one was sexually harassed or assaulted at work, do not hesitate to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will protect your legal rights and secure the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-547-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

NLRB Rule Does Not Recognize Graduate Students as Employees

By anthony, 12th November 2019

Graduate students often teach classes and conduct valuable research while earning an advanced degree. However, according to a proposed rule by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), graduate students are not considered employees, meaning they do not have the right to unionize. Graduate students from leading private institutions across the country have mobilized to fight for unionization to secure higher wages, better benefits, and protection for workers to help deal with sexual harassment and discrimination complaints. If passed, the rule would undercut those efforts.

According to the professor of labor and employment law at Cornell University and general counsel for the American Association of University Professors, the current NLRB is made up of mostly conservative board members who happen to be extremely political and intent on overruling decisions made by previous administrations that expanded employee rights to unionize. According to the professor, the NLRB made these decisions on a case-by-case basis in the past, but that appears to be changing.

Is Graduate Work Considered Work or Education?

At the heart of the argument is whether the teaching and research that graduate students conduct is considered work, or if it is part of their continued education. In 2016, the NLRB decided that Columbia students who were paid to teach and conduct research were considered employees and had the right to unionize. Prior to that, there was some back and forth among NLRB members, which impacted students’ rights to unionize. Prior to the Columbia decision, representatives from nine prestigious universities argued that graduate students have an academic relationship with the university, rather than an economic one. However, the NLRB ruled that graduate students could have a dual status of economic and academic.

Following the Columbia decision, students have come together to form unions at several private universities such as Harvard University, Brown University, Yale University, the University of Chicago, and several others voting in favor of unionization. Graduate students who are currently negotiating for employee status are unsure about how the proposed rule will impact their efforts. If the rule is passed, students have vowed to continue to fight for unionization.

Students at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Boston College, and the University of Pennsylvania sent petitions to the NLRB but withdrew them out of fear that Trump-appointed members would issue an anti-union decision. According to the executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions at Hunter College, it is Congress that has the authority to decide employment status, but the NLRB rule seems to be taking over that authority.

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

If you are a graduate student at a college or university, and your employment status prevents you from being able to unionize, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protecting your legal rights is our top priority and we will ensure that you receive the financial compensation to which you are entitled. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Former Employees Allege Pension Cuts During Corporate Restructuring

By anthony, 7th November 2019

Talen Energy is a privately-owned independent power producer that serves commercial and industrial customers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Ohio, and the District of Columbia. In 2016, the company was bought by Riverstone Holding, a New York City-based private investment firm that specializes in the energy industry. According to a federal lawsuit, three former senior engineers from Talen claimed that the company failed to pay them their full pensions after Riverstone Holding took over the company.

All three former employees worked at PPL’s Brunner Island power plant in York County. PPL’s energy supply division became Talen Energy, which continued to own Brunner Island. When Talen Energy was launched on June 1, 2015, the company inherited PPL’s pension provisions. According to the attorney, who represents the former employees, Talen and the senior executives responsible for administering the pension did not pay the men their full pensions required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Court documents claimed that Talen Energy owes them approximately $750,000 in pension costs.

ERISA Anti-Cutback Rule

ERISA includes an anti-cutback rule, which states that employers may not reduce or eliminate early retirement pension benefits that employees have accrued over time. When Talen was taken over by Riverstone Holdings, the then-employees lost their jobs. Since they were all under the age of 60, they were entitled to their full pensions, as well as pension supplements for losing their jobs.

However, Talen executives were allegedly responsible for reducing the retirement payment for each of the three former employees. They also supposedly omitted several provisions for full pensions and supplements that had been in PPL’s pension plan. As a result, they would have been compensated thousands of dollars less than they were legally entitled to receive. According to the workers’ attorney, Talen retained employee benefit plans after the spin-off from PPL. This key piece of information will be presented in court.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Employee Pension Issues

If you did not receive your full pension from your employer, do not hesitate to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Federal law states that employers may not withhold pension benefits from eligible employees. We will protect your rights and work tirelessly to secure the full pension amount to which you are entitled. We will not stop fighting for you until you are completely satisfied. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

New Federal Overtime Rules Make Additional Workers Eligible for Overtime Pay

By anthony, 23rd October 2019

The U.S. Department of Labor recently issued a final overtime rule that will have an impact on 1.3 million American workers. These updated overtime regulations will put more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans across the country. However, critics of the rule say that it should include more employees who often work over 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay. Currently, workers making approximately $23,660 per year may receive overtime pay, which falls well below the poverty line for a family of four. Effective January 1, 2020, workers who make an annual salary of up to $35,568 will be eligible for overtime pay. This is the first time in 15 years that changes have been made to overtime regulations.

A proposal was made during the Obama administration that would have raised the minimum salary threshold to approximately $47,000. If this passed, roughly three million additional workers would have been entitled to overtime pay, or a shorter work week. While this appealed to many workers, it did not necessarily benefit workers who were making a higher salary, but who regularly exceeded 40 hours per week. For example, a general manager at Jiffy Lube in Seattle went from making $16 an hour to an annual salary of $52,000 a year. However, due to understaffing, he often worked over 100 hours a week. As a salaried employee, he was not eligible for overtime pay. Given the long hours, his salary was less than what he would have made if he were paid a $16 an hour wage plus overtime.

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

If your employer failed to compensate you for overtime pay, you may be eligible for compensation. To schedule a confidential consultation, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

PA Court Rules in Favor of Employer in Whistleblower Retaliation Case

By anthony, 18th September 2019

A former employee of GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) alleged that he was wrongfully terminated from his job in retaliation for reporting concerns about potential security threats related to the company’s manufacturing and financial servers. The plaintiff filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the company shortly after he was discharged. GSK responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX Act”) whistleblower retaliation claim. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion for summary judgment due to a lack of evidence to support the claim that the company violated any SEC regulations.

Highlights of the Case

The plaintiff had been with the company for 16 years prior to his termination. He was part of the team responsible for the AS/400 computer operating system. In 2011, he noticed that a co-worker had started using uncapped processors, which impacted the way the processors performed. GSK consumers began complaining about the overall performance of the processors after the uncapped systems were enabled. The plaintiff confronted the colleague, and notified his supervisor, as well as the vice president of enterprise systems and technologies. After he did not get the response he was hoping for, he notified the Global Compliance Office about the issue. Ultimately, he filed a complaint with the CEO of GSK. The plaintiff alleged that the company’s 2013 report to the SEC failed to mention any of the performance or security concerns that had been raised. After an internal investigation, GSK found that the plaintiff’s complaints were unsubstantiated.

In early 2014, GSK announced that only two of the AS/400 positions would remain in-house and that the rest would be outsourced. The plaintiff was encouraged to apply for one of those positions, but he chose not to because the language in the memo he received led him to believe that his employment would depend on the outcome of the investigation. After a number of postponed termination dates, he was told on April 8, 2015 that his position was being eliminated and that his last day of employment would be June 30, 2015.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that GSK disclosed the risks associated with the computer system’s poor performance. The company’s report also noted that the failure to protect important information and sensitive systems could have a negative impact on the company’s financial results. As a result, the court held that anyone with the training and experience that the plaintiff had could not believe that the defendant was in violation of the SOX Act.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for the Rights of Whistleblowers

If you were wrongfully terminated in retaliation for an employment dispute, you are urged to 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 in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Supreme Court to Decide on Racial Bias Lawsuit Against Comcast

By anthony, 11th September 2019

Byron Allen, owner of Entertainment Studios Network (ESN)—an African American-owned media company—filed a discrimination lawsuit against Comcast, alleging that the telecommunications giant refused to carry any of the network’s channels due to racially discriminatory practices. A federal court initially dismissed the claims. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the lawsuit legitimate after Allen appealed the initial decision. Comcast appealed the decision, which ultimately brought the case to the Supreme Court.

According to Allen, Comcast had assured him that his channels were being considered for carriage, and that they were on the “short list” for new channels. However, rather than follow through with that assurance, Comcast moved forward with over 80 lesser-known channels, all of which were owned by caucasians. Comcast characterized the claims as “outlandish” and that the decision to launch the other channels had nothing to do with race.

The key issue that the Supreme Court will be considering is whether there is enough evidence of racial discrimination to allow the lawsuit to proceed. Allen claims that Comcast is in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, which guarantees racial equality in a number of domains, including business. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco opined that ESN only had to prove that discrimination was a motivating factor in Comcast’s decision regarding ESN programming. However, Comcast argued that Congress allowed “motivating factor” discrimination claims under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but purposely did not include a similar provision to Section 1981. ESN countered by arguing that Congress added the provision to Title VII to protect discrimination victims, and that this should not mean Congress planned to limit civil rights claims under Section 1981.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients Alleging Discriminatory Business Practices

If you have questions about what you suspect is racially discriminatory conduct, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Our skilled legal team will thoroughly review your case and determine whether your civil rights have been violated. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients from South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

District Court Judge Orders Status Reports on Arbitration Proceedings Between Ritz-Carlton Hotel and Former Employee

By anthony, 28th August 2019

In 2000, Ritz-Carlton hired the plaintiff as a hotel manager, at which time he received the standard training that all new hires receive. After completing the training, he initially worked as a PBX manager until the position was eliminated. He was then transferred to the accounting department, and eventually became a Banquet Captain, a position which he held for nine years. After he began receiving complaints about his job performance, he was terminated in 2013 at the age of 53. The plaintiff alleged that Ritz-Carlton purposefully wanted to get rid of older workers, and that he was fired because of his age. Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald J. Pappert suspended the case in August of 2018 pending an arbitration session. In April, Judge Pappert ordered both parties to provide regular status updates on the progress of the arbitration proceedings.

Part of Ritz-Carlton’s training involves providing new hires with an Employee Agreement, which the plaintiff and the Assistant Director of Human Resources signed. The Employee Agreement describes the hotel’s three-stage procedure for resolving conflicts in the workplace. The first stage involves attempting to resolve the issue with the worker’s immediate supervisor, division head, or general manager. If a resolution cannot be reached, the employee proceeds to stage two, which involves seeking help through a Peer Review Panel. If a resolution still cannot be reached, the employee moves to stage three which is arbitration. The plaintiff completed this three-stage procedure.

However, instead of proceeding to arbitration, the plaintiff filed a complaint in August of 2017, and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed on the grounds that he agreed to arbitrate the age discrimination claim. The motion was granted and the Court compelled arbitration, while staying the case in the meantime. Judge Pappert cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit precedent in Great W. Mortg. Corp. v. Peacock, saying that any doubts about what issues should be heard in arbitration should be resolved through arbitration.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Seek Justice for Clients in Wrongful Termination Disputes

If you were wrongfully terminated from your job, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. at your earliest convenience. We will review the details of your case and determine whether your legal rights have been violated. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we assist clients across New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia Passes Ordinance that Protects Parking Employees Wrongfully Discharged

By anthony, 21st August 2019

Parking lot attendants are generally low-paid positions, with little to no healthcare benefits. In Philadelphia, employers operating parking lots or garages could discharge an employee without demonstrating just cause. Therefore, attendants had no legal recourse if they were fired from their job. However, on June 5, 2019, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney signed a bill that would prohibit parking lot or garage employers from discharging an employee unless he or she is able to demonstrate just cause or a “bona fide economic reason.” This new ordinance—which will impact approximately 1,000 employees—provides low-wage workers with union-like protections.

The “Wrongful Discharge from Parking Employment” ordinance will be included in the Philadelphia Code. Effective September 3, 2019, employers will need to demonstrate just cause to terminate an employee. According to the law, the employer will be required to implement progressive discipline before discharge and may not refer to disciplinary action from more than one year ago. However, the ordinance does allow employers to terminate workers in reverse order of seniority for financial reasons, but employers must provide business records that provide proof of a reduction of revenue or profit. In addition, if a worker is discharged, the employer must provide a written explanation as to the reason for the termination. The ordinance also states that employers may not retaliate against an employee who is simply exercising his or her new legal rights.

Enforcement of the New Law

The Mayor’s Office of Labor will be responsible for enforcing the ordinance and investigating specific cases. In addition to the new protections the ordinance offers parking attendants, it also allows discharged workers and the Philadelphia City Solicitor to file a civil lawsuit against an employer if he or she violated the law in any way. If a terminated employee files a discharge claim, and the case is successful, the employee will be eligible for attorneys’ fees, liquidated damages up to $2,000, and reinstatement, as well as the usual damages associated with a discharge claim. All employers who operate a parking lot, parking garage, or valet service in the city of Philadelphia are strongly urged to thoroughly review their policies and ensure that they are in compliance with the new ordinance.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Represent Employees Who Have Been Wrongfully Discharged

If you were terminated from your job without just cause, it is in your best interest to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. as soon as possible. We will conduct a thorough investigation of your case, including the events leading up to your termination, and determine whether your employer violated employment laws. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our office is conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients from South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

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

By anthony, 15th August 2019

A Philadelphia resident filed a lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza after a Domino’s employee allegedly directed a racial slur at him during a confrontation in July of 2017. The customer had complained that he received a pizza via delivery that was burnt. He drove to the restaurant to return the pizza and request a refund. The situation became heated after the customer took a picture of the employee, who refused to give the customer his refund unless he agreed to delete the photo. The employee claimed that having her picture taken was against her religion. As the argument escalated, the Domino’s employee allegedly directed an offensive racial slur at the customer. A Pennsylvania Superior Court judge ruled that, while offensive, a racial slur is not enough to warrant a lawsuit.

Ruling Based on 1985 Precedent

The initial lawsuit claimed that Domino’s was negligent in the way it hired, trained, and supervised its employees. The customer claimed that the racial slur directed at him caused emotional distress. Due to a precedent that was established in 1985 in the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which ruled that an individual can only be held liable for emotional distress if the individual’s conduct is extreme and outrageous, the initial lawsuit was dismissed.

The precedent is based on an incident involving an altercation between a department store employee and a shopper, where the employee reportedly directed the n-word at the shopper. The ruling states that an individual cannot be held liable for mere insults, threats, and other indignities or trivialities. Until legal and societal changes occur, plaintiffs must be expected to accept a certain degree of offensive, inconsiderate, or unkind acts. The law cannot intervene every time someone’s feelings are hurt.

The Domino’s customer appealed after the initial lawsuit was dismissed, claiming that the 1985 ruling was outdated. While the Pennsylvania Superior Court made it clear that it does not condone such offensive and derogatory language, the appeal was denied.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers at The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle a Range of Legal Matters

If you suffered emotional distress, financial harm, or were injured in any way as a result of racial discrimination in the workplace, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia business litigation lawyers at The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Time Warner Cable Employee Receives $334,500 in Damages after Proving Pretext for Age Discrimination

By anthony, 7th August 2019

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding in favor of a terminated Time Warner Cable employee (Time Warner) who was subjected to age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Westmoreland v. TWC Administration LLC , 924 F.3d 718 (4th Cir. 2019). The jury awarded the employee $334,500 in damages.

The legal standard for establishing age discrimination under the ADEA is known as the McDonnell Douglas framework. The framework consists of a three-part test where the court engages in a burden-shifting analysis in order to determine whether an employee was fired because of his or her age. First, the burden is on plaintiff/employee to establish a prima facie case. Second, the burden shifts to defendant/company to give a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Third, the burden is back on plaintiff/employee to prove that the reasons provided in part two are not true reasons for termination; rather, they were pretext for age discrimination.

Here, the dispute between the employee and Time Warner centered on the third part of the test, pretext. Time Warner stated that they fired the employee due to “trust and integrity issues” which resulted from the employee telling a subordinate to edit the date on a form. However, after the violation, the employee was told that it was a minor violation and that she would simply receive a “slap on the wrist”. Time Warner provided no other reasoning for why it fired the employee.

The Fourth Circuit held that the employee provided enough evidence of pretext where she showed that she was fired after 30 years of work with a satisfactory record, that her supervisor made a condescending, age-related remark after firing her, and where the violation that supposedly led to her termination was considered minor. The jury award of $334,500 was upheld because Time Warner could not provide a legitimate reason for the employee’s termination.

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

If you or someone you know has been discriminated against at work because of your age, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. 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 South Jersey.

Newer
1
…
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
…
31
Older

1101 Market Street Suite 2700, Philadelphia, PA 19107