Category: Employment Law

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Rules Against Plaintiff’s Claim that Arbitration Clause is Unconscionable

By ,

In Curtis v. Cintas Corporation, Plaintiff was terminated by her employer and she asserted claims for racial discrimination and retaliation.  229 F.Supp.3d 312, 315 (E.D. Pa. 2017).  Although Plaintiff sought to litigate her case in court, Defendant moved to dismiss her claims, and in the alternative, stay proceedings pending arbitration, as Defendant claimed that Plaintiff’s employment agreement contained an arbitration clause. In response, Plaintiff asserted that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and therefore, invalid and unenforceable.

Under Pennsylvania law, to prove a claim of unconscionability, a plaintiff must prove that the contract was both substantively and procedurally unconscionable. Substantive unconscionability occurs when the contractual terms are unreasonable or grossly favorable to one side, which the disfavored party does not assent to.  In this case, Plaintiff asserted that Defendant is inherently favored because the employer pays the costs for arbitration.  However, the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania pointed to case law stating that limiting costs to one party does not support a finding of substantive unconscionability. Procedural unconscionability pertains to the process in which an agreement is reached, but the form of the agreement is unclear.  Here, Plaintiff claimed that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because she signed only on the last page, and that page did not contain an arbitration clause.  However, the Court explained that there is no requirement in Pennsylvania to affix a signature to each section or page of an agreement to manifest an in intent to be bound by the terms.

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

Third Circuit Says Employees Should Be Paid for Rest Breaks

By ,

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has recently held that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must compensate employees for breaks less than 20 minutes, even if they are not performing any work during their break time.

In the case presented to the Court, the employer was a company that produced business publications that were sold by sales representatives over the phone. The representatives were able to take breaks whenever they wanted to, and for any length of time. Their employer did not require them to remain on the premises during their break time. However, whenever these employees were logged off their computer for longer than a minute and a half, they were not paid.

The United States Department of Labor sued the company under a federal regulation that states break periods between five and 20 minutes are customarily paid, and must be counted as hours worked. The trial court concluded that the employer violated the FLSA, and the employer appealed, arguing that a different regulation governed its practices. According to the employer, these breaks were off duty, when employees were completely relieved of duty. The off-duty regulation specifically defines these periods as times when an employee is completely relieved of duty such that they can use the time effectively for their own purposes. The regulation describes this as a fact specific inquiry. The employer argued that since employees were free to leave for as long as they wanted, with no obligation to return to work, even brief breaks did not need to be compensated under the off-duty regulation.

The Third Circuit employed a common canon of construction; where there are two regulations arguably on point, the more specific regulation is controlling. Here, because the off-duty regulation was more generic than the rule governing break policies, it was not controlling. The Court characterized this as a bright line rule, providing that employers must pay employees for any rest breaks lasting 20 minutes or less. At the time of the Third Circuit’s ruling, no other Circuit Court had ruled on this question.

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

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., we advocate for our clients in all types of FLSA and unpaid overtime claims. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our Philadelphia employment lawyers are ready to discuss your case today.

Third Circuit Defines “Willfulness” Under FLSA

By ,

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a precedential opinion regarding “willful” violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).   There is a two-year statute of limitations under the FLSA unless the violations are deemed willful, in which case there is a three- year statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs in this case were a class of part-time Lackawanna County employees who worked in two separate part-time positions. According to the Court, Lackawanna County failed to aggregate the hours of the employees for purposes of calculating overtime.    The lawsuit asserts that Lackawanna County became aware that it was violating the FLSA in 2011, and several months later, it began aggregating the hours of the employees in calculating overtime pay. During the trial, the county admitted to violating the FLSA, but argued that the violation was not willful.    The trial court determined that the defendants’ poor time keeping records amounted to willful violations of the FLSA.

The Third Circuit disagreed and reasoned that there was no evidence that Lackawanna County was specifically aware of the FLSA rule it was violating. It opined that a plaintiff must show evidence of the employer’s awareness of a violation of the FLSA overtime mandate. The Court contrasted a case of clear willful violation, wherein an employer deliberately misclassified employees for nine years, and another case where a family failed to pay its nanny minimum wage.  Here, Lackawanna County addressed the problem within a year of learning it was violating the FLSA. The Court noted that it was likely a bureaucratic failure, and not a deliberate violation.

Philadelphia Overtime Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Litigate FLSA Claims

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we routinely represent plaintiffs in overtime and wage dispute matters. To schedule a consultation with a Philadelphia overtime dispute lawyer, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Court Rules that Accommodations for Indefinite Leave are Not Reasonable

By ,

An Appellate Court in Connecticut recently ruled that a reasonable accommodation for medical leave does not require employers to wait indefinitely for an employee’s medical condition to resolve itself. In the case of Thomson v. Department of Social Services, the plaintiff informed her employer that she would be taking a leave of absence from her work, but did not provide her employer with a time frame for her return. She also did not respond to her employer’s subsequent attempts to reach out to her in order to determine when she planned to return.

According to the Court, this employee essentially asked her employer to hold her position open for her indefinitely while she attempted to recover. The Court, relying on federal laws, found that this was not a reasonable accommodation request. The plaintiff, according to the Court, could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on these facts.

The employee informed her supervisor that she would be taking “over thirty days” leave depending on whether the lung condition resolved itself. And during a deposition, she confirmed that she did not know how long she was going to be out of work to recover from her health condition.

At the time she left her employment to take leave, the employee filled out a number of forms for her employer. The information she listed on these forms was incoherent and confusing. Her employer even reached out to her by certified mail for additional information, and did not receive a response. When the time came that she was required to submit further information and did not, her employer terminated her. The Court upheld the termination, because the accommodation that she requested was deemed unreasonable.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Employment Disputes

If you are in need of a Philadelphia employment lawyer, contact Sidkoff, Pincus & Green. To learn more about how our dedicated team of trial attorneys can help you, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Employer Liable

By ,

Whistleblower Case Brought by Employee

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognizes that an employee who brings a claim against his employer under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law can hold his employer liable where the employee’s good-faith report of wrongdoing resulted in a retaliatory demotion.

In O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 566 Pa. 161 (2001), the appellant O’Rourke was employed by the appellee, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“Department”). During his employment, O’Rourke became aware of a scheme where thousands of pounds of meat products were being stolen from the culinary department. In response, O’Rourke filed a report regarding this activity of wrongdoing and charged various workers and supervisors with theft and mismanagement. Shortly after transmitting his report, O’Rourke began experiencing a hostile working environment and was demoted from his position at the Department.

The Court ruled that the Department failed to prove that its actions occurred for reasons separate from O’Rourke’s report of wrongdoing, and failed to rebut O’Rourke’s prima facie case. Therefore, O’Rourke was entitled to compensation pursuant to the state’s whistleblower law.

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

E.D.P.A. Overrules Motion to Dismiss

By ,

Claims Plaintiff Alleged Sufficient Facts Demonstrating Pervasive Sexual Harassment

A claim for sexual harassment can be established by proving a hostile or abusive work environment. To prove such a claim, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) she suffered intentional discrimination because of her sex; (2) the discrimination was pervasive and regular; (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same sex in that position; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability[, where an employer is liable for an employee’s negligent actions or omissions that occur during the course of the employee’s employment].” Hawk v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3445, at *12 (E.D. Pa. 2003).

The trial judge considers the totality of the circumstances when considering a sexual harassment claim. The judge will consider factors such as, the frequency of the harassment, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, whether it unreasonably interferes with employee’s work performance, and its effect on the employee’s psychological well-being. For instance, in Hawk, the judge took into consideration that the harassment occurred every day in the form of unwelcome phone calls to the employee, that the harassment was severe by being physically grabbed and shoved against a wall, the employee was humiliated in the sense that she was followed by the harasser around the workplace and was constantly interrupted when conversing with other men co-workers by the harasser, and the employee was emotionally distraught when discussing her harasser during an interview with her employer. The Pennsylvania Eastern District Court found that a jury could “certainly” find that the employee was harassed and that it would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in the same position, denying a motion to dismiss.

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

Separate Companies can be Joint Employer

By ,

For Purposes of Title VII and §1981 Claims

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to show that Defendant companies could be “joint employer[s]” or a “single employer.” Anderson v. Finley Catering Co., 218 F. Supp. 3d 417, 423 (E.D. PA. 2016).

Plaintiff alleges “race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims against both Defendants pursuant to Title VII and § 1981.” In Anderson, Plaintiff was the only African American male who worked full time as a cook in Defendants’ catering business. Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that the management at the catering business made racial jokes and remarks about Plaintiff and gave Plaintiff more undesirable work than they did to other employees who were not African American. After Plaintiff complained to the management about the racial discrimination, some people from the management “called Plaintiff a “snitch” and warned him that he needed to watch what he said.” Following Plaintiff’s complaint, management cut Plaintiff’s hours from 40 to 3 hours per week. After Plaintiff filed for unemployment compensation benefits, management demoted Plaintiff from his position as a cook to dishwasher. Further, following this demotion, management failed to place Plaintiff on a work schedule.

The Court denied dismissal of the case. Defendants argued that the case should be dismissed because Plaintiff’s employer was Union Trust and there was not “sufficient facts” to make the claim that Finely Catering was “liable under either a “joint employer” or “single employer” theory.”  The Court held that the Plaintiff has pled “sufficient facts” at this step in proceedings that “Finley Catering and Union Trust are both owned by Steve Finley, share common management and operations, and have centralized control of labor relations and common financial controls.” Therefore, the Court can “reasonabl[y] infer” that the companies are “either joint employers or a single employer.”

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

Third Circuit Finds Age Discrimination

By ,

Mandatory Age Retirement Case

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that an employer’s forceful retirement of an employee after his or her 65th birthday violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In Maxfield v. Sinclair Int’l, 766 F.2d 788 (3d Cir. 1985), the plaintiff Maxfield was employed by Sinclair International from 1940 until 1980. Shortly before his 65th birthday during a conversation with the company’s founder, Maxfield was questioned about his plans for retirement. When Maxfield vocalized his intentions to work until he was 70 years old, the founder articulated that if Maxfield did not retire on his 65th birthday, Sinclair International would find reason to retire Maxfield. One month later, Maxfield learned that the company decided to “retire him” and would be replacing him with another younger employee.

The Court ruled that Maxfield made a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing that he was replaced by an employee more than 20 years younger, and that Maxfield’s social security benefits could not be set off against damages. Lastly, the court found that Maxfield was entitled to “front pay”, a financial award for future earnings.

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

EDPA Dismisses Disability Discrimination Claim

By ,

Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for disability discrimination and claim for retaliation because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. McIntosh v. White Horse Vill., Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 480 (E.D. Pa. 2016).

Plaintiff alleged religious discrimination, racial discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation in her Amended Complaint. In McIntosh, Plaintiff worked as a Licensed Practical Nurse (“LPN”) at a retirement home. Full time LPNs are supposed to work on Sundays. She requested an accommodation to be excused from working on Sundays because she wanted to participate in religious services on those days. She was provided this accommodation. Later, she requested and received an FMLA leave for her surgery. Upon returning from her leave, she requested an accommodation to be excused from working on Sundays. The new Director of Nursing denied this request. Plaintiff alleges that she had to step down from her full time position as an LPN to per diem to be able to attend services on Sundays. In Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint that she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), she alleged religious discrimination and retaliation, race discrimination and retaliation, violations of the FMLA, violations of the ADA, and violations of the PHRA. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s counts under the ADA and PHRA, on the basis that those claims were not procedurally exhausted.

The Court dismissed the claims for disability discrimination and retaliation because the Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court reasoned that Plaintiff failed to claim disability discrimination in her Charge to the EEOC. Further, she did not have anything in her Charge to the EEOC that would lead the Court to infer that she was alleging a disability discrimination.

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

NJ Court Holds Employer’s Insurance Did Not Cover Sexual Harassment Claims

By ,

The Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey recently issued an opinion addressing whether an employer’s insurance policy provides coverage for allegations of sexual harassment against an employee.  U.S. Magistrate Judge Cathy Waldor issued an unpublished decision agreeing with defendant Lloyd’s of London that the policy it had underwritten did not cover an ambulance service’s employee’s sexual harassment lawsuit.

The Insurance Policy

Aaron Ambulance’s main insurance policy contained a clause that excluded from professional liability coverage allegations of sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, and child abuse.  It also excluded claims brought by one insured employee against another for discrimination.  However, Aaron Ambulance had purchased a coverage extension, such that claims arising out of sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, and child abuse would be covered, as long as the sublimit of coverage threshold was met.  The policy extension was memorialized in an endorsement.  The terms of the extension were also subject to the condition that the endorsement did not change any other terms or conditions of the policy.

The Claim

An employee of Aaron Ambulance filed a suit against her employer, alleging that she was sexually harassed and abused while employed by Aaron.  Underwriters at Lloyd’s denied coverage to Aaron for the lawsuit, on grounds that the extension of coverage for sexual misconduct did not insure claims filed by employees—it only covered claims of sexual misconduct filed by patients.  Aaron Ambulance claimed that the policy gave rise to a reasonable expectation that the extension would cover employment-related sexual harassment claims.

The Decision

The court ultimately sided with the Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London.  The judge found that the endorsement did not extend to employment practices coverage (claims filed by employees), and was restricted to professional liability (claims filed by patients).  The Court described the alternate reading as generous interpretation, and used a “plain reading” approach in conjunction with references to other exclusions in the policy (excluding claims brought by employees for discrimination).  In other words, the main policy specifically excluded employee claims of sexual harassment, and the coverage extension simply allowed coverage for claims of harassment filed by patients—that is why the two passages (the main form and the extension) were not inconsistent with one another.  On this basis the Court found that Aaron Ambulance could have held no reasonable expectation that the policy extended to cover sexual harassment claims filed by employees.

Philadelphia Sexual Harassment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Handle Sexual Harassment Claims

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we represent individuals in all types of employment related disputes and litigation, including claims for sexual harassment. To learn more about how our sexual harassment lawyers in Philadelphia can help you, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.