Category: Employment Law

Proving Age Discrimination in Pennsylvania

By ,

Like the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) prohibits employment discrimination based on age. To successfully bring a PHRA claim of age discrimination through termination or replacement, an employee must show evidence demonstrating that 1) he or she belonged to the protected class of persons 40 years of age or older; 2) he or she was performing duties that he or she was qualified to perform; 3) he or she was discharged; and 4) that a continuing need for the services the employee had been performing existed. See 1 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Torts § 12:63 (2d ed.).

In order to prevail on a claim alleging age discrimination in termination, the employee has the sometimes-difficult burden of proving that his or her age was in fact the actual motivation and determinative influence in the employer’s decision to fire the employee.

As was made clear in the case of Glanzman v. Metropolitan Management Corp., the replacement of an older employee by a younger one does not necessarily permit the inference that such a replacement was motivated by age discrimination. 391 F.3d 506. Once an employee presents the necessary direct evidence of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that they would have fired the employee even if they had not considered the employee’s age. The employer in Glanzman was able to list several other causes for firing, including, inter alia, the employee’s failure to timely respond when paged, lying, and making excessive personal calls on the office phone. Therefore, the employer successfully rebutted the employee’s prima facie case of age discrimination by relying on evidence of these other causes for firing.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Victims of Age Discrimination

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

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Defines “Employer”

By ,

Under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Employer is Defined as the Owner of a Company that Employs Four or More Employees

The Pennsylvania Humans Relations Act (PHRA) is a state statute that is for the protection of employees against employment discrimination. To bring a law suit against an employer for wrongful termination because of sexual harassment under the PHRA, the person must be an “employer” as defined by the act. According to the PHRA, to be considered an “employer” punishable under the act, there must be four or more employees that the person employs. Reversely, if a work environment has three or less employees the owner of the company is not liable under the PHRA for a wrongful termination suit because of Sexual Harassment.

In the case Weaver v. Harpster, 601 Pa. 488 (S. Ct. Pa. 2009), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania confirmed that an environment of three employees does not qualify the owner of the company as an “employer”. Id. at 506. The woman in Weaver wanted to sue her employer because according to her compliant the “[e]mployer invited Employee to engage in a sexual relationship and committed various inappropriate sexual and physical contacts, such as rubbing, touching and hugging her, making inappropriate comments about her appearance, attire, and sexual proclivities, and closely following her around the office and to the bathroom.”  Id. at 492. However, because the work environment was so small (never more than three people at a time), she was barred from asserting her claim under the Pennsylvania Humans Relations Act, for being discriminated based on sex. The court did insinuate that there could be other remedies for the plaintiff such as bringing tort claims against the defendant for his actions.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Victims of Sexual Harassment by their Employer

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

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyer: PNC Settles Class-Action Lawsuit

By ,

PNC Bank recently agreed to pay $16 million to settle a federal class-action lawsuit filed by employees who claimed that the company discouraged them from reporting overtime and failed to pay them fairly for acquired overtime hours. The case involved 3,431 employees and mortgage loan officers employed by PNC since 2011.

Four loan officers originally filed the lawsuit in August 2015, citing a breach of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA in part establishes overtime pay eligibility for full and part-time workers in the private sector and in local, state, and federal governments. The FLSA states that eligible employees are entitled to one and a half times the employee’s rate for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week.

One of the most common overtime violations is the incorrect classification of a worker as “exempt” or non-exempt from overtime compensation. Under the FLSA, exempt employees may include those who earn more than $23,600 per year and perform executive duties in the course of the job. Exempt employees might include those who: supervise two or more employees; perform primarily as managers; or those involved in decisions regarding other employees such as hiring, firing, and promotion. A skilled wage dispute lawyer may help you determine your eligibility for overtime pay and if you have a valid overtime dispute with your employer.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Advise Clients in Unpaid Overtime Disputes

You may not be aware that unpaid overtime can be collected up to two years after the date that it was earned. In some cases, you may have an additional year to pursue unpaid overtime. If you are unsure about your eligibility or believe you have a valid overtime claim, contact a Philadelphia wage dispute lawyer at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at our Center City Philadelphia offices at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: False Claims Act Violation

By ,

A former employee of MedStar Health Inc. has filed a whistleblower lawsuit against her employer under the False Claims Act. Court documents allege the company engaged in fraudulent activity together with a vendor, Accretive Health Inc., to boost Medicare inpatient claims at hospitals.

Claims of Medicare Fraud

Medicare pays more to hospitals for patients who are admitted for inpatient care than it does for patients who are on observation status. The plaintiff claims that while working at MedStar Washington Hospital’s emergency department, she helped to submit false claims to Medicaid, Medicare and Tricare. She alleges that Accretive took patients who were on observation status and created written recommendations for them that justified admitting them as inpatients. The Accretive personnel making the recommendations did not have the qualifications or even the information required to do so. The suit alleges that MedStar staff were then pressured into accepting the recommendations.

The lawsuit alleges that Accretive went as far as to claim to hospital administrators at different hospitals around the country that they could provide a revenue lift from Medicare. The suit describes a system designed by Accretive to exploit the administrators’ need for revenue and diminish the authority of the hospitals’ own doctors by overriding them with the fraudulent recommendations.

The False Claims Act

The False Claims Act is a federal law that holds people and companies liable for defrauding the government. It is the government’s primary tool for litigation against fraud. The Act’s qui tam provision enables private citizens to bring suit on behalf of the government. This is commonly known as whistleblowing. Whistleblowers filing under the False Claims Act receive a portion of the money recovered – usually between 15 to 25 percent. Whistleblowers are also entitled to protection against retaliation because they exposed fraud.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Whistleblowers in False Claims Act Cases

Qui tam cases are complex and require thorough knowledge of whistleblower law. The Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can review your case if you believe that you have been retaliated against for whistleblowing. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule an appointment in our Philadelphia offices or contact us online. We serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Whistleblower in California Receives Substantial Award

By ,

A whistleblower at a California based life science company has been awarded nearly $8 million by the jurors hearing his case. The claimant served as general counsel at Bio-Rad when he discovered possible bribery being committed in China by senior management of the company. He duly reported the potential violations of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) internally to an audit committee that investigated them and concluded there had been no wrongdoing.

The investigation lasted four months after the internal memo was originally filed by the informant in February of 2013. In June that same year, the plaintiff was fired after 25 years of service at Bio-Rad. The company claimed his termination was due to his erratic work and loud outbursts, but his 2012 performance review was largely positive. No documentation of the alleged behavioral problems existed aside from a review in April 2013. The trial hinged on the plaintiff’s team using metadata to show that the review had actually been created in July, after the firing.  Attorneys for the plaintiff called the review “a despicable lie” and said it had been fabricated to justify his wrongful termination.

The jury deliberated less than three hours and unanimously found that Bio-Rad had fired the counselor in retaliation for his whistleblowing actions. He was awarded $2.9 million in back pay and stock compensation, along with $5 million in punitive damages. Because the Dodd-Frank Act doubles back pay for whistleblower retaliation, the award total will increase to nearly $11 million.

In November 2014, Bio-Rad was forced to pay $55 million in fines to settle violations of the FCPA. The Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission brought criminal charges and civil claims against the company alleging improper payments were made to foreign officials in Vietnam, Thailand, and Russia. In testimony, the whistleblower said he had found documents detailing the distribution of free products to clients in China. He filed his qui tam lawsuit against Bio-Rad and its CEO charging the disclosure of his findings should have been protected under the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The jury agreed, awarding the man one of the highest amounts ever granted under the Act.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Defend Whistleblowers

If you suspect wrongdoing at your workplace it takes tremendous courage to step forward and blow the whistle on such conduct. There are laws to protect whistleblowers and prevent retaliation against them. The Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are here to discuss your situation with you and provide guidance. Call 215-574-0600 or contact us online to schedule an appointment at our Philadelphia offices. We represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

 

 

 

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers: Future of the Overtime Rule

By ,

Last year, the Department of Labor issued a new ruling for overtime pay extending the maximum salary threshold a worker can earn and still be eligible for overtime to $47,500.  The new rule, which was set to take effect on December 1, 2016, would enable approximately 4 million more workers to become eligible for overtime pay.  However, in November of 2016, a federal court judge in Texas temporarily blocked the rule, holding that it does not comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act on the grounds that the Labor Department may not decide which workers qualify for overtime based only on their salary.  The Department of Justice under President Obama appealed this decision.

With the law temporarily blocked and a new administration in place, the future of the overtime rule is uncertain.  The federal court in Texas has given the DOJ until May 1, 2017 to file a brief stating its position.  Aside from the uncertainty of whether the DOJ pursues its appeal, another issue is whether the Department of Labor intends to simply repeal the new rule, or issue an alternative rule.  The current salary threshold below which workers qualify for overtime wages is just $23,660 per year.  Millions of workers will be impacted by the future of the overtime rule and their fates hang in the balance.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Employees in Overtime and Wage Disputes

If you have an employment concern or wage dispute issue, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. have the experience to help you achieve an optimal outcome. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation about your case or contact us online. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia and we serve clients in Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Philadelphia Passes Wage Equity Bill

By ,

In an effort to close the wage gap between men and women, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney recently signed a bill preventing employers from asking applicants about their salary history. The Wage Equity Bill makes Philadelphia the first major American city to ban employers from asking candidates what they were paid at previous jobs. Companies in violation of the new ordinance face fines of up to $2,000.

The bill, first introduced in September 2016, is designed to eliminate the income disparity between men and women. According to a 2015 United States Census Bureau report, women make 79 cents for every dollar that men make. This discrepancy exists regardless of experience, education, or industry. The Pew Research Center also reports that as of 2015, women earn 83% of men’s hourly wages.

The rationale behind the bill is that if women are paid less than what they deserve at beginning of their careers, and potential employers base their salary on previous jobs, they will never catch up to their male counterparts. Though similar legislation already exists in Massachusetts, Philadelphia is the first major city to ban salary inquiries. New York State and Pennsylvania are also considering passing wage equity bills.

The City Council passed the bill with a unanimous vote, but it is already experiencing some pushback from one of the city’s largest employers – Comcast. The media giant, with headquarters in Center City Philadelphia, has already vowed to challenge the ban in court on grounds that it violates employers’ free speech. The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce also opposes the bill, saying it gives the perception that the city is “anti-business,” and discourages new employers from setting up shop in Philadelphia.

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

The team of Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green understands the complexities of employment law matters. Our attorneys represent employees in all aspects of employment law, including wage disputes. Call our Center City Philadelphia offices today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to schedule a consultation with one of our attorneys.

We serve clients throughout the Greater Philadelphia area including Delaware County, Montgomery County, Philadelphia County, and the towns of Bala Cynwyd, Merion Station, Wynnewood, Darby, Narberth, Upper Darby, Sharon Hill, Cheltenham, Clifton Heights, Folcroft, Lansdowne, Drexel Hill, Elkins Park, Havertown, Glenolden, Ardmore, Gladwyne, Wyncote, Norwood, Holmes and Haverford, as well as New Jersey.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers: Third Circuit Rules That Overtime Class Action Cannot Proceed In Arbitration

By ,

Recently, the Third Circuit weighed in on the issue of whether it is up to courts or arbitrators to decide if a class action lawsuit should be adjudicated in court, or in an arbitral forum. This case also dealt with the issue of whether an employment agreement that is silent on the issue of class arbitration permits employees to proceed on a class-wide basis on that basis. In Opalinski v. Robert Half International, the 3rd Circuit sided against the plaintiffs who wished to proceed on a class wide basis in arbitration. The case involved employees of the placement firm, Robert Half.

The plaintiffs were two former staffing managers at Robert Half in New Jersey. The men claim that they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay, and wrongfully denied such pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defense argued that when the men signed their employment contracts, they waived their right to resolve employment disputes in court. Their contracts provided that such disputes must be submitted to arbitration. However, their contracts were silent in regards to class wide arbitration. The two men brought an action on behalf of themselves and other putative class members who were denied overtime pay.

Shortly after filing the claim, a United States Dihttps://overtimestrict Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the employees’ individual claims. However, the district court determined that the arbitral forum had jurisdiction to decide whether class wide arbitration was permissible.  The arbitrator found that such claims could proceed on a class basis in arbitration – and when the defendant sought to overturn this ruling in district court, the trial court sided with the plaintiffs.  Subsequently, the defendant appealed this ruling and the 3rd Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the decision lies with the courts. The United States Supreme Court then declined to hear the case on appeal. After the case was remanded, the district court granted Robert Half’s motion to dismiss, finding that parties cannot be compelled to submit to class wide arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding such.

The plaintiffs appealed this decision yet again, and the 3rd Circuit recently ruled against them, finding it had already “explicitly decided,” in a precedential opinion in this same case, that the question of arbitrability of class claims is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in All Types of Wage Dispute Cases

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we routinely handle FLSA claims involving unpaid overtime. Our respected Philadelphia wage dispute lawyers are prepared to answer whatever questions you may have. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

 

 

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers Discuss the Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representative Act

By ,

The Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representative Act, 43 Pa. Stat. § 1471 et seq. (“PCSRA”) provides statutory remedies for certain sales representatives when they are not paid timely commissions. Under the PCSRA, a “principal shall pay a sales representative all commissions due at the time of termination within 14 days after termination” and “all commissions that become due after termination within 14 days of the date such commissions become due.” 43 Pa. Stat. §§ 1473–74. If a principal “willfully” violates these provisions, then the sales representative may bring a civil action to collect all unpaid commissions plus exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. Id. § 1475. The Act thus governs the payment of commissions owed by a “principal” to a “sales representative,” and a defendant can only be liable if the plaintiff is a “sales representative” as that term is used in the Act.

A key factor in determining whether you have a claim under the PCSRA is to understand how the law defines the terms “sales representative” and “principal”.

The PCSRA defines the term “sales representative” as follows:

“Sales representative.” A person who contracts with a principal to solicit wholesale orders from retailers rather than consumers and who is compensated, in whole or in part, by commission. The term does not include one who places orders or purchases for his own account for resale or one who is an employee of a principal.

Id. § 1471.

Thus, a “sales representative” is someone who solicits wholesale orders from “retailers” rather than “consumers.”

A “principal” is defined by the PCSRA as any person who does all of the following:

(1) Engages in the business of manufacturing, producing, importing or distributing a product for sale to customers who purchase such products for resale.

(2) Utilizes sales representatives to solicit orders for such product.

(3) Compensates sales representatives, in whole or in part, by commission.

Id.

Finally, a sales representative should be cautioned against bringing a meritless claim against a principal under the PCSRA.  If judgment is entered for the principal and the court determines that the action was brought frivolously, then the principal will be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. § 1475.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Sales Commissioned Representatives in Claims to Recover Unpaid Commissions

If you are owed unpaid commissions, you may have a valid claim under the Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representative Act, among other potential causes of action. Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will seek maximum compensation for your damages. To learn more about how we may be able to help you, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Communications Decency Act

By ,

State Law Claims Such as Defamation and Negligence Barred under the Communications Decency Act

Under the Communications Decency Act 47 U.S.C.A. § 230 (“CDA”), a party is immune to state law claims relating to information published on the Internet such as defamation, misappropriation of likeness, breach of contract, and negligence. § 230 of the CDA states that no cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

For example, these provisions bar state law claims against interactive computer services for publishing content obtained from another information content provider. Doe v. Friendfinder Network, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 288, 293 (D.N.H. 2008). The intent of this provision is to preclude courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role. Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003). The Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the CDA provides immunity to similar claims like misappropriation of the right of publicity, defamation, and negligence. Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492, 501 (E.D. Pa. 2006), aff’d, 242 F. App’x 833 (3d Cir. 2007) citing (Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.) (§ 230 affords immunity from suit on claims of invasion of privacy, misappropriation of the right of publicity, defamation, and negligence)).

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