Category: Employment Law

PA Court Maintains Limited “Coming and Going” Rule in Workers Compensation Claims

By ,

On May 17, 2018 the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania declined to extend the “coming and going” rule to cover an electrical worker who sustained substantial injuries in a car accident while driving from home to a job site, despite sporadically receiving compensation for travel expenses. Kush v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Power Contracting Co.), No. 1688 C.D. 2017, 2018 WL 2246523, at *1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 17, 2018). The Claimant was employed by two separate corporations doing electrical work, and routinely traveled to different jobs for both employers on the same day. The truck Claimant drove was owned by one of his employer’s, Vantage, but the present claim was against the other employer Power Contracting Company (PCC). Claimant had been working almost exclusively on the same PCC job site for the month preceding the accident.

Claimant sought compensation for medical expenses from PCC for injuries suffered while driving to the same job site after he lost control when driving over an ice patch. The Workers’ Compensation Judge dismissed his claims on the grounds that the “coming and going” rule did not apply to Claimant as he was commuting to a fixed job location. The “coming and going” rule states that injuries sustained by an employee while traveling to and from their place of employment are outside the scope of employment and are generally not compensable. On appeal, Claimant argued that he fell under two exceptions to the “coming and going” rule: he had no fixed place of employment, and his employment agreement included time spent for transportation to and/or from work. On appeal both arguments were rejected by the Court.

The Court emphasized that exceptions for the “coming and going” rule have been narrowly construed and have been fact specific holdings. The Court said that while Claimant may have traveled to different job sites for PCC, for the weeks preceding the accident he had been working at the same site and he anticipated only working at the one site on the day of the accident. The court then found that travel was not included in Claimant’s contract with PCC as his other employer, Vantage, actually owned and provided the truck. PCC did not own or control the Claimant’s means of commute, and while PCC would pay for the gas used to travel to its sites, his wages did not include pay for travel. He was only paid for time spent traveling to pick up equipment for the job by PCC if the pick-up took place on the way to the job. Claimant was not paid for time spent driving home at the end of the day and there were no provisions in his contract covering travel. The Court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding and dismissed Claimant’s petition.

he experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are available to answer questions about your case. To learn more about how we can help, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are centrally located in Philadelphia, and we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on PA Court Maintains Limited “Coming and Going” Rule in Workers Compensation Claims
  Other posts by

PA Court Continues Trend of Expanding the Definition of Work Premises

By ,

On February 22, 2018 the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the growing practice of expanding the boundaries of work premises in order to protect employees injured on the job. US Airways, Inc. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bockelman), 179 A.3d 1177, 1183 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018), reargument denied (Mar. 28, 2018). A Philadelphia flight attendant working for US Airways, Inc. suffered significant knee and leg injuries while attempting to move her suitcase onto the luggage racks of the shuttle bus that transports employees from a separate parking facility to the workplace of her employer. US Airways did not own, rent, or lease the shuttle buses, and did not require use of the shuttle or provide any directive at all to employees as to how employees should commute to work. The attendant brought a claim seeking compensation to cover the medical expenses for her injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that the employee was injured in the course and scope of her employment, US Airways appealed.

On appeal US Airways challenged the argument that the shuttle was part of the protected premises for employees. The Court emphasized that the term “premises” in the scope of the workplace was not limited solely to property actually owned or leased by the employer. The Court relied on precedent to establish that “premises includes reasonable means of access to the workplace” and that “means of access customarily used by employees” may be considered within the scope of employer’s premises. US Airways understood that employees who drove to work would almost always be required to park in the separate parking facility and use the shuttle system. The court found that the use of the shuttle system was “a necessary part of her employment.” Even if US Airways did not explicitly require its employees to use the shuttle, it was so integral, connected, and expected for employment that the WCJ did not err in concluding that the shuttle was required by nature of the employment. The Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board’s order was affirmed, and rearguement was denied on March 28, 2018.

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

  Category: Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on PA Court Continues Trend of Expanding the Definition of Work Premises
  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.

Third Circuit Court Adopts “Honest Belief” Defense in FMLA Case

By ,

When an employer reasonably believes an employee may be misusing FMLA leave, evidence of why the employer came to that “honest belief” can serve as a defense to a retaliation claim under the FMLA. See Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, 847 F.3d 144, 152 (C.A.3 (Pa.) 2017).

In the above-mentioned case, the employer fired an employee after it believed he intentionally misused intermittent FMLA leave.  After enduring bilateral hip replacement in 2003, the employee developed arthritis that would cause severe pain, sometimes lasting for days or weeks at a time. This condition required the employee to request intermittent FMLA leave to cover any time he could not work and continued to be recertified for leave every six months. In early February of 2013, on a day the employee requested off due to his condition, he was arrested for DUI. After spending the night in jail the employee also requested leave the next day. The employee never reported this arrest to the employer and subsequently began requesting leave multiple times after that for his condition. About a year later, when a HR manager became aware of the employee’s DUI conviction, the employer investigated and noticed on certain days of requested leave the employee had corresponding court dates.

The employee ultimately was terminated for misusing FMLA leave and violating a company policy on dishonest acts. On appeal, the employee argued the employer was mistaken in their belief to fire him and instead it retaliated against him for taking intermittent FMLA leave. The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment on behalf of the employer, finding the employer had an “honest belief’ of the employee’s misuse of intermittent FMLA leave.

For more information, call our employment lawyers in Philadelphia at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. The legal team at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represents clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Third Circuit Court Adopts “Honest Belief” Defense in FMLA Case
  Other posts by

Supreme Court to Rule on Legality of “Fair-Share Fees”

By ,

On February 26th, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 851 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2017). Although the Court will not circulate a decision until summer of 2018, commentators are speculating that Janus will succeed in overturning the precedent set in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).

In Abood, the Supreme Court allowed a public employer to require its non-union member employees to pay a fee because they benefitted from the unions collective bargaining agreement with the employer. The fees were not permitted to cover any political funding whatsoever, only the proportionate costs incurred during contracting.

In this case, Mark Janus, a public employee, is challenging an Illinois state law that requires non-union members to pay a “fair share” fee to the union that negotiated on the non-members’ behalf. The “fair share” fee was enacted to cover a proportionate share of the costs the union accrued in negotiating the contract. The fee combats against “free-riding”, whereby a non-union member enjoys the benefits of the contractual work performed by a union without having to pay a fee for those benefits. Janus contends that the fee violates his First Amendment rights because the fees are a form of compelled speech and association which should be reviewed under heightened scrutiny.

The Supreme Court’s ruling could prove costly for unions in America. Invalidating the “fair share” fee could drastically reduce union funding and membership.

For more information, call our Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

Overtime and the Fluctuating Workweek Method

By ,

fluctuating workweek

Calculating Overtime Using the Fluctuating Workweek Method Does Not Violate the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently resolved a case regarding the method of calculating overtime compensation under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). In Chevalier v. Gen. Nutrition Centers, Inc., 177 A.3d 280 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) employees filed a class action against General Nutritional Centers (GNC) for unpaid overtime, specifically that GNC’s method of calculating overtime violated the PMWA. The PMWA provides that employees must be paid overtime at not less than 1½ times their regular rate for every hour worked over 40 in a workweek.

GNC calculated overtime compensation using the fluctuating workweek method (FWW). The FWW determines an employee’s “regular rate” of compensation for the workweek by dividing each employee’s pay by the number of hours the employee worked during the workweek. Therefore, employees’ regular rates fluctuated each week. GNC then paid employees at one-half of their regular rate for each hour of overtime worked. The employees argued that, (1) an employee’s regular rate should have been calculated using a fixed 40-hour workweek, not the fluctuating workweek method, and (2) the overtime pay should have been 1½ times their regular rate for each hour of overtime instead of one-half their regular rate

The Superior Court found that using the FWW to calculate an employee’s regular rate did not violate the PMWA, however, paying overtime of only one-half the regular rate did violate the PMWA. In support of the FWW not violating the PMWA the court mentioned that the Pennsylvania Generally Assembly borrowed the term “regular rate” from the Fair Labor Standards Act, which permitted the FWW method of calculation when the PMWA was enacted. In support of paying overtime of one-half the regular rate violating the PMWA the court cited a Pennsylvania regulation requiring employers to pay employees not less than 1½ times their regular rate of pay for all hours exceeding the 40 hours threshold. In conclusion, the FWW is permissible under the PMWA, however overtime must still be paid at 1½ times the employee’s regular rate.

For more information, call our overtime lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

Pennsylvania Employee Terminated for Legitimate Reasons Despite Claims of Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation

By ,

On February 13, 2018, a jury found in favor of a defendant employer against a plaintiff alleging hostile work environment and retaliation. In Johnson v. Keystone Quality Transp. Co., Johnson, a former employee of Keystone working as a paratransit van driver, alleged hostile work environment and retaliation after she was terminated. No. 2:16-cv-06603-GJP. Johnson alleged claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 951, et. seq. (“PHRA”).

According to the Complaint, while working at Keystone, Johnson’s supervisor began sexually harassing and assaulting her, including sending inappropriate pictures of himself and groping her more than once. Once Johnson reported the harassment, the supervisor was terminated by Keystone for his actions. However, about a week later, Plaintiff was suspended and ultimately fired. In her suit, Johnson alleged she was terminated in retaliation for reporting the harassment.

Keystone successfully rebutted Johnson’s claims by proving that Johnson’s suspension was a result of taking the wrong vehicle and preventing the use of another vehicle as she had the set of car keys on her. Keystone argued that after the suspension was over, Johnson was not terminated, but rather she abandoned her job, as she failed to come back to work. Weighing the facts of the case, a jury determined there was no sexual harassment or retaliation by Keystone against Johnson.

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

Sixth Circuit Rules Discrimination Against Transgender/LGBTQ Employees Violates Title VII

By ,

transgender/lgbtq discrimination

On Wednesday, March 6, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that discrimination against transgender/LGBTQ employees is discrimination based on sex, a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., the employee, born biologically male, worked as a funeral director for a corporation that operates Michigan funeral homes. 2018 WL 1177669, at *1 (C.A.6 (Mich.), 2018). The employee was terminated soon after informing the owner of the funeral home that she planned to transition and would represent herself as a woman. After receiving the employee’s complaint, the EEOC investigated the allegations of sex discrimination and learned in addition that the funeral home had in place a discriminatory clothing policy, providing males with clothing adhering with the dress codes, while woman received no such benefit. The EEOC filed suit on behalf of the employee, alleging violations of Title VII based on the termination of the employee and the discriminatory clothing policy.

The Sixth Circuit ultimately found in favor of the EEOC on the unlawful discrimination claim, holding that firing an employee “because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status, is illegal under Title VII.” Furthermore, the Court determined that the funeral home could not use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a defense because there would be no substantial burden to their religious exercise by continuing to employ the individual.

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

  Category: Civil Rights, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Sixth Circuit Rules Discrimination Against Transgender/LGBTQ Employees Violates Title VII
  Other posts by

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.

Court Ruling on Employee Abuse of FMLA Leave

By ,

Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employer’s honest belief that an employee misused their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was sufficient to defeat the employee’s claim for retaliation. This holds true even if it turns out that the employer was mistaken, and that the employee was not misusing their rights under the FMLA. Pennsylvania is within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, the employer, Mondelez, had an FMLA policy in place. The policy made clear that any employee who fraudulently misused FMLA time would be subject to discipline and possible termination. The company also had an additional policy that provided discipline if an employee was found to have engaged in dishonest acts. One of Mondelez’s employees, Frederick Capps, was experiencing bouts of severe pain following a bilateral hip replacement that he underwent in 2003. Mondelez provided him with intermittent leave under the FMLA during these bouts of pain.

One day in 2013, Capps took the day off alleging it was for pain related to his medical condition. Later that evening, he went to a bar and was arrested for a DWI while driving home. Although he was scheduled to work the next day, he called out complaining of pain related to his hip surgery. Capps’s employer learned of his arrest in the newspaper, and discovered that he fraudulently requested FMLA for the day after his arrest and on subsequent court dates; the absences were not related to his medical condition. As a result, his employment was terminated.

Termination Retaliation

Mr. Capps sued his employer for allegedly retaliating against him for taking FMLA leave. The District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Mondelez Global, LLC on grounds that it acted on an honest belief that Capps had been abusing FMLA leave. Although the Court ultimately found that he had not established a prima facie case of retaliation, it noted that Mondelez had established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Capps, stating that he violated the company’s Dishonestly Policy. Because the employer acted in good faith, the Court ruled in its favor, concluding that even if the employer’s belief turned out to be untrue, it still would have prevailed because it had established that it acted in good faith.

This is consistent with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ rulings in other discrimination claims, such as age-discrimination and Title VII cases, whereby an employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination will not be defeated by a plaintiff demonstrating that the belief was ultimately incorrect.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Employment and Business Matters

The statutes, regulations, and case law that govern the employer-employee relationship are constantly evolving. If you have questions about a legal situation, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. today to schedule a confidential consultation. We can be reached at 215-574-0600 or by submitting a convenient online contact form.