Category: Employment Law

Separate Companies can be Joint Employer

By ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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.

Employees Cannot Bypass Title VII

By ,

SPG

The Third Circuit is the most recent court to hold that employees cannot pursue Section 1983 claims for claims that also arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  Under Section 1983, a Plaintiff can proceed directly to court without going through the pre-lawsuit requirements of Title VII and the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).

The Third Circuit is the most recent of eight circuits to have considered whether employees could bypass Title VII and bring a claim against their employer for discrimination under Section 1983 instead.  Each of the eight circuits (including the Third Circuit) that have weighed in has concluded that plaintiff-employees cannot bypass Title VII.  This was a case of first impression in the Third Circuit.

In this case, the plaintiff, Cheryl Williams, filed a lawsuit against her former employer, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC), and two of her former supervisor’s in their individual capacities as “state actors.”  She alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race and disability.  Williams exhausted all her administrative remedies prior to filing suit.  Because there is no individual liability provision under either Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), she relied solely upon Section 1983 to attach her two supervisors in the suit.

The Western District of Pennsylvania granted Summary Judgment to her former employer, PHRC, finding that Title VII and the ADA do not create an individually enforceable right under Section 1983.  On appeal to the Third Circuit, the Court affirmed the entry of Summary Judgment in favor of PHRC.  The Court explained that Section 1983 contains no administrative scheme like Title VII and the ADA, which include filing deadlines and limited liability for individual state actors.

According to the Court, by allowing Title VII or ADA claims to be filed as Section 1983 claims would thwart the carefully crafted administrative scheme enacted by Congress, and throw a backdoor open to our federal courts when the front door has been purposefully fortified.  In other words, plaintiffs cannot bypass Title VII to avoid administrative remedies under other provisions.

In short, plaintiffs who seek to recover for workplace discrimination must abide by the full administrative process outlined in Title VII and the ADA.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Actions Filed Under Title VII and the ADA

To learn more about how the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.  We represent clients in all types of business litigation matters and employment related matters.

Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy Needs Particularity

By ,

SPG

In Spyridakis v. Riesling Group, Inc., 2009 WL 3209478 (E.D. Pa. 2009), the plaintiff-employee brought a claim for wrongful termination on the basis of defendant-employer’s alleged violations of public policy, specifically the right to free speech and to petition government under the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions. Additionally, Spyridakis claimed that federal and state labor, employment, and tax laws were also violated. Spyridakis alleged that Riesling Group terminated her for “inquiring with the Bureau about whether defendant properly treated her employment as that of an independent contractor” and the defendant evaded federal and state laws by “classifying workers as independent contractors, but treating them as employees.”

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Spyridakis’ wrongful termination claim because of her failure to identify a particular statute, or other source of public policy, that proscribes such conduct. The court explained that under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff, under these circumstances, must point to specific violations of federal or state law to the extent they embody public policy, and show that they have been violated. The court further explained that Pennsylvania law limits claims of constitutional violations of public policy to incidents involving state actors (and here, the employer was not a state actor).

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

Racial Discrimination Claim Dismissed

By ,

SPG

Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

The District Court will dismiss claims of racial discrimination if a plaintiff has failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. In Jones v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., the Plaintiff was Khalia Jones, an African American woman who worked for Defendant Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. No. CIV.A. 13-4316, 2015 WL 505491, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2015). Jones requested accommodations at work to avoid endoscopy procedures that had radiation due to her pregnancy. Jones’ supervisors had provided these accommodations for white technicians when they were pregnant. The supervisors rejected Jones’ requests and later, terminated her, reasoning that she did not perform her job, “misrepresent[ed] information” to the supervisor, and “walk[ed] [away] from the job.”

Jones failed to exhaust all of the administrative remedies because she neglected to allege racial discrimination in her complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission before bringing this lawsuit. The only allegation alleged in Jones’ EEOC and PA HRC complaint was based on sex discrimination – that Jones’ employer discriminated against her because of her pregnancy by rejecting her requests for accommodations. Due to Jones’ failure to raise claims of racial discrimination at the EEOC level, the District Court dismissed the claims of racial discrimination.

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

Third Circuit Defines “Willful” FLSA Violation

By ,

SPG

The issue of whether an employer “willfully” violated the Fair Labor and Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay overtime wages is important because a willful violation allows a plaintiff to recover an additional year of lost wages. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). The question of what a willful violation is appeared recently in a Third Circuit Court decision in Souryavong v. Lackawanna Cty., No. 15-3895, 2017 WL 4159604 (3d Cir. Sept. 20, 2017). The issue in Souryavong arose because Lackawanna County failed to properly aggregate hours worked of county employees, who held two different part-time jobs, resulting in a failure to pay overtime. There was testimony on behalf of the county which said they were generally “aware” of their obligations under the FLSA, and there was also an e-mail from another county official that recognized this error in tracking time of these employees and the county took measures to address and fix the issue.

In order to find the county liable for a willful violation, the county must have known its conduct was prohibited, or “showed reckless disregard for the matter.” McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128, 133, 108 S.Ct. 1677, 100 L.Ed.2d 115 (1988). Acting only “unreasonably” is insufficient—some degree of actual awareness is necessary. The Third Circuit determined that willful violations of the FLSA require a more specific awareness of the legal issue than was present in this case. The Court further explained that the county lacked a level of egregiousness, which had been found in other willful violations in sister courts. Weighing these factors together, the Court determined there was no “willful” violation of the FLSA by the county.

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

DOL Exempt Employee Salary Rule Invalidated by Judge

By ,

SPG

The latest development in the controversy surrounding the Final Rule, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) that changed the salary threshold concerning which workers are eligible for overtime, is a final judgement that invalidates the rule entirely.

The Final Rule was one of the last major actions of the Obama administration and raised the salary threshold for exemption from overtime pay from $23,660 to $47,476. Before the changes could go into effect on December 1, 2016, a lawsuit filed in a Texas federal district court won a preliminary injunction against the rule, effectively blocking it. The case known now as Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor began as two separate lawsuits. In both cases, the plaintiffs argued that the DOL had overstepped its authority by doubling the threshold of the salary test, thereby giving it too much weight and detracting from the value of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) duties test.

Judge Amos Mazzant combined the two lawsuits into one and granted the preliminary injunction. The DOL appealed his decision on December 1, 2016. Because of the election, everything was essentially on hold during the changeover in administrations. Employers and employees waited in limbo to see how the Trump administration would proceed with the issue.

On August 31, 2017, Judge Mazzant issued a final Opinion and Order in the case granting summary judgement to the plaintiffs. He declared the Rule invalid and unenforceable, stating that we would not be where we are today if the salary level had been adjusted for inflation rather than doubled by the DOL Rule. He agreed that certain salary tests are appropriate, but found that Congress was unambiguous in creating overtime exemptions based on duties and not specific salary levels.

Despite the final judgement by Mazzant, the status of the case is still in question because of the active appeal of his first injunction. The DOL has the option to appeal this ruling, but it is more likely that it will revise the rule and come up with its own update of the salary test. Last year when the Final Rule was first announced, some employers went ahead and raised managers salaries in order to avoid paying them overtime, starting December 1. Other companies waited to take action and it seems they will continue to wait for complete clarity on the issue of overtime.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers for Fair Labor Standards Act at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Provide Counsel on Wage and Hour Disputes

With all the current uncertainty about overtime pay, you may wonder if you are being paid fairly. The Philadelphia wage dispute lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. offer counsel for all of your legal employment needs. Call 215-574-0600 today to schedule a consultation about your case, or contact us online. From our offices in Philadelphia, we serve clients locally and throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Best-Interest Contract Provision from DOL Fiduciary Rule

By ,

SPG

The Best Interest Contract, sometimes referred to as BIC, is part of the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule. The Trump Administration has mandated a request for information to guide the Department of Labor (DOL) in its review of the rule to either change it, or eliminate it all together. Last week, in a lawsuit over the regulation, the DOL filed documents stating that it would be seeking an 18-month delay in the implementation of the remaining parts of the fiduciary rule. This 18-month waiting period will give federal agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), a chance to weigh in. 

What is the BIC provision? 

A BIC is a legally binding agreement that allows stockbrokers to earn variable compensation on products that they sell to retirement investors so long as they act in the investors’ best interests. The BIC provision allows investors to file class-action lawsuits over violations of this rule. Lobbyists want to have the rule modified or stricken.

The 18-month delay period will allow agencies, such as the SEC, plenty of time to undo the contract. Critics of the rule say that it is too complicated and that it raises liability costs. At this point, the only thing that is clear is that agencies will continue working on drafting the rule for at least a few years. The SEC has already put out a request for comment on fiduciary duty. The DOL’s request for information also indicates that lawmakers may add specific exemptions to the rule for the sale of certain retirement investment products, such as clean shares.

By delaying the rule’s finalization that the DOL wants to collaborate with the SEC, Finra, and state insurance regulators, it is a very difficult and complex issue. According to many commentators, there is no end in sight.  This can be extremely frustrating to those who work in compliance. It is impossible to advise clients how to comply with regulations when they are hanging in limbo.

Philadelphia FINRA Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Class Action Lawsuits

The Philadelphia FINRA lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. stay up to date on the latest changes in state and federal business law so that we can advise our clients with an eye to the future. Our trial lawyers represent clients in all types of FINRA lawsuits. To learn more about how we can help, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.