Category: Employment Law

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.

Fiduciary Lawsuit Against University of Pennsylvania to Proceed

By anthony, 31st July 2019

A lawsuit was filed against the University of Pennsylvania in 2016, alleging that the university breached its fiduciary duties of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 by allowing TIAA-CREF and Vanguard Group to collect excessive administrative fees from customers and retain investment options that underperformed. A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit, but a judge from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court reversed the dismissal of the third and fifth counts of the fiduciary lawsuit.

The third count of the fiduciary lawsuit alleges that the university:

Charged excessive administrative fees
Did not solicit bids from other service providers
Failed to monitor revenue sharing
Failed to grow the plan in order to get lower fees or rebates
Did not effectively review plan management

The fifth count the fiduciary lawsuit claimed that the university allowed the providers to charge unreasonable investment fees. In addition, the university retained high-cost investment options that had a history of performing poorly compared to alternative options. The appeals court filing also said that the university retained multiple options in the same asset class and investment style.

Judge Finds Allegations Plausible

According to 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Dennis Michael Fisher, the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty were plausible, and that the District Court mistakenly ignored reasonable inferences that were supported by facts. However, the University of Pennsylvania argues that the plaintiffs failed to plead facts that contradicted inferences that were favorable toward the university.

A spokesperson from the University of Pennsylvania released a statement saying that the court dismissed five of the seven claims, and that the remaining two claims are without merit. He went on the say that the university has a track record of administering the retirement plan in the best interests of the faculty and staff.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Cases Involving Breach of Fiduciary Duty

If your employer failed to uphold its fiduciary duty, resulting in financial losses, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We handle a wide range of employment issues, including investment fraud and financial advisor misconduct. 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.

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

By anthony, 27th June 2019

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

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

Other Lawsuits Filed Against Unions

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

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

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

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

If you have questions about unions and your rights under federal and state employment laws, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Court Rules in Favor of Temple University Hospital in FMLA Case

By anthony, 30th May 2019

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employer may not harass an employee if he or she needs to take time off to care for a family member. In the case of Hernandez v. Temple University Hospital, the plaintiff claimed that her supervisor violated the FMLA by harassing her for taking frequent days off from work to take care for her daughter, who suffered from asthma. However, regardless of the perceived hostility that the plaintiff felt from her supervisor, all of her requested days off were approved. Ultimately, the plaintiff’s employment was terminated when it was discovered that she violated Temple’s HIPAA policy.

The plaintiff worked as a medical secretary in the hospital’s cardiology department from July 2008 until September 2016. Over the course of her employment, she made numerous requests for time off, including a request for two to three absences per month of up to four hours per episode. Each of these requests were approved. In July 2016, she submitted another request involving more frequent time off in order to take her daughter to multiple medical appointments. While the request for leave was granted, the plaintiff claimed that her supervisor told her that she had to recertify her eligibility for FMLA leave.

The plaintiff went on to say that her supervisor harassed her and questioned the seriousness of her daughter’s illness. She also testified that her supervisor was hostile towards her and increased her workload every time she returned to work after taking leave. The plaintiff argued that her supervisor’s actions violated the FMLA by interfering with her attempt to exercise her rights. In addition, she claimed that her supervisor’s hostility caused her to suffer from extreme stress every time she needed to request time off.

All Requests for Leave Granted

Considering the plaintiff was able to take all the time off that she needed in order to care for her daughter, the Court found that she was unable to prove that she was denied benefits that she was entitled to under the FMLA. In order for the claim to be viable, the plaintiff needed to show that her FMLA rights were withheld, or that her employment was jeopardized by taking leave. The court ruled that the plaintiff did not satisfy the fifth prong of the interference analysis. As a result, she failed to make a prima facie showing of interference.

Ultimately, the plaintiff was terminated because she looked at the medical records of an OB-GYN patient, which is a violation of Temple’s HIPAA policy. The investigation did not involve the plaintiff’s supervisor, who is the only other person to have allegedly been hostile toward the plaintiff. Computer records proved that the plaintiff had, in fact, reviewed the patient’s records, which resulted in her termination.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Clients with Employment Disputes

If your legal rights have been compromised at work, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. will address all of your questions and concerns and seek the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Pregnancy Discrimination at Amazon

By anthony, 28th May 2019

Federal and state laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees because of a number of protected characteristics, including pregnancy. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act mandates that any decisions related to hiring, firing, promotion or demotion, transfer, salary, or benefits cannot be based on an employee’s pregnancy status. Online retailer Amazon has recently come under fire for alleged pregnancy discrimination, facing seven lawsuits in the past eight years.

Amazon is a vast company of more than 600,000 employees that has built its success on productivity. With its guarantee of two-day shipping for Prime customers – recently reduced to one day – the company’s fulfillment centers operate at a fast pace and demand that workers reach high packing quotas. Critics of the company say that this productivity often comes at the expense of employees’ well-being.

Pregnant Workers Penalized for Reduced Productivity

Workers in Amazon’s fulfillment centers often work 10-hour days, most of which is spent on their feet; and they are frequently moving heavy objects. They are typically allotted 30 minutes each shift for non-work tasks, such as going to the restroom. Any additional time could affect an employee’s rate, a metric used to measure their productivity. According to the lawsuits, pregnant employees, who need some accommodations for their condition, were disproportionately affected by these policies.

In the most recent case, an employee at Amazon’s Golden State Fulfillment Center in California was fired two months after informing management that she was pregnant. Her lawsuit alleges that, during those two months, her supervisors chastised her for taking too many bathroom breaks and reducing her productivity. Another employee filed a lawsuit after requesting not to climb ladders or lift boxes over 20 pounds, at the advice of her doctor. Her managers put her on unpaid leave for over a month while they claimed they were trying to accommodate her requests; when she returned, no accommodations had been made, and she was terminated a month later. Two others were fired after taking sick days during their pregnancies.

Amazon released a statement refuting the allegations in the lawsuits, saying that they would not terminate an employee due to pregnancy. The company claims that they accommodate work restrictions for pregnant employees based on their individual needs, and that they do not keep tabs on employees’ bathroom breaks. The statements made in the lawsuits tell a very different story, in which managers stood waiting for employees to return from breaks and rejected doctors’ notes requesting accommodation. Six of the seven lawsuits were settled out of court.

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

Employers are required by law to make reasonable accommodations for workers’ medical conditions, including pregnancy. If you have been subjected to pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, call the law offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will thoroughly review the facts of your case and work to ensure that your rights are protected. With offices located in Center City, Philadelphia, we represent victims of workplace discrimination throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to discuss your case with a Philadelphia employment lawyer.

Growing Number of Cities and States to Ban Salary History Inquiries

By anthony, 1st May 2019

Cities and states across the country are passing legislation that prohibit employers from conducting inquiries into prospective employees’ salary histories. The main purpose of salary history bans are to close the wage gap that continues to exist for women and minorities. By prohibiting employers from accessing this information, these employees are better able to negotiate a fair salary.

While historically liberal states have a history of supporting legislation that supports workers’ rights, many conservative states have also started to subscribe to the idea of banning salary inquiries. For example, Maine lawmakers recently passed legislation that would prohibit employers from asking job candidates for information about salary history. The Governor of North Carolina also signed a similar order that would prevent state agencies from using an applicant’s pay history to negotiate a salary offer.

Addressing Pay Gaps

Several states are responding to the current political environment and the lack of federal rules over pay disparities by acting and passing legislation that bans pay history inquiries. In March, the House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would prohibit employers from paying different salaries to similarly qualified individuals unless warranted. It is not yet known whether the bill will pass in the Senate. While these policies may not have an overnight impact on local employers, it should be a wake-up call that employers can expect broader restrictions down the road. Pay fairness has become more of a hot topic of discussion recently. West Virginia, Montana, New Jersey, Washington, and New Hampshire have considered pay history bans during recent legislative sessions.

The following states have banned employers from asking questions about pay history:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Massachusetts
Oregon
Vermont
Puerto Rico

The following states have rules for state agency hiring practices:

Illinois
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protect Employees’ Rights to Fair Pay

If an employer asks for your salary history during an interview, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will protect your legal rights and ensure that you are fairly compensated for the work you do based on your experience and qualifications, not on your salary history. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are in Philadelphia, where we serve clients across southeastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and New Jersey.

Dismissing Federal Lawsuit Does Not Delay Statute of Limitations

By anthony, 16th April 2019

In the case of Jaiden Buchan v. The Milton Hershey School, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled that the clock does not stop on the statute of limitations for making a claim in state court, simply because someone voluntarily withdraws a lawsuit. Buchan filed a complaint against the school in December of 2016, alleging that the school had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act. She voluntarily withdrew her lawsuit against the school on June 19, 2017. The plaintiff filed a writ of summons in July of 2017, but the court ruled that the voluntary withdrawal of her lawsuit was not the same as a federal court dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

According to Judge Alice Beck Dubow, since Buchan filed an action in federal district court, and then voluntarily dismissed it, this does not toll the statute of limitations. The Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the case in April 2018, saying that since there was no pause caused by the federal suit, the window to file an action closed when Buchan turned 20, which was six months before she filed the Complaint in state court.

Claims Made by Buchan

Buychan claimed that the school neglected her mental health issues, unfairly punished her for getting a tattoo, and accused her of starting a fire at the school, which resulted in her being expelled from the school. She initially filed claims in the federal court in December 2016, alleging that the school intentionally inflicted emotional distress, as well as other violations of the ADA, including breach of fiduciary duties of care and malicious prosecution. However, Buchan withdrew the suit in June of 2017.

Later that year, Buchan filed a writ of summons in Dauphin County, and two months later she filed a complaint alleging negligence, breach of duties of care and good faith, emotional distress, and malicious prosecution. The state court dismissed the case, saying that it was time-barred. Buchan appealed, arguing that according to the Title 42, Section 5103 of Pennsylvania’s Consolidated Statutes, the statute of limitations is tolled when a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Because she withdrew her case, Buchan argued that she “rendered the federal court without federal jurisdiction.” As a result, her federal suit should have stopped the clock. In addition, she argued that the Title 28, Section 1367 of the U.S. Code gave her 30 days to refile in state court if a federal court did not exercise supplemental jurisdiction. According to Buchan, less than 30 days had passed between the voluntary dismissal and the first filing in the state lawsuit. Section 1367 included voluntarily dismissed cases.

The Superior Court ruled that the “voluntarily dismissed” part of Section 1367 only applies to claims that are not being considered by the federal court under supplemental jurisdiction. Judge Dubrow wrote that the language in the Section 1367 does not apply to Buchan’s case because she voluntarily dismissed all of the state law claims she asserted in her federal complaint under supplemental jurisdiction.

Philadelphia Appellant Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Assist Clients with the Appeals Process

The Philadelphia appellant lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. have extensive experience handling various types of appeals, including issues relating to employment discrimination, due process, and constitutional law, among others. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Center City Philadelphia, where we serve clients from Southeastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and New Jersey.

Newer
1
…
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
…
28
Older

1101 Market Street Suite 2700, Philadelphia, PA 19107