Category: Employment Law

Adequate Notice to an Employer to Receive Workers’ Compensation

By ,

SPG

Under sections 311 and 312 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, when an injury occurs, an employee has 120 days from the day the injury occurred or from when the injured person had notice that the injury was work-related, to notify the employer of the injury to satisfy “employer knowledge”. 77 P.S. § 632.

In the case Gentex Corp. v. W.C.A.B. (Morack), the plaintiff developed injuries from repetitive lifting of helmets and sowing helmets together every day for over 30 years. 23 A.3d 528, 530-33 (Pa. 2013). Eventually, the plaintiff experienced swelling in her hands and legs, with pain so severe that she needed to take time off of work. The same day, she went to her doctor who informed her that the injury was from the constant, repetitive movements she made to complete her tasks at work. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the plaintiff’s voice messages to her employer’s phone, noting she has “work related problems,” were enough notice to satisfy the requirement. The court held that even an imperfect notice can satisfy Section 312, especially if the plaintiff admits that his or her notice was imperfect. Because of this ruling, Pennsylvania courts must look at all of the circumstances surrounding notice, because adequate notice is a fact-intensive inquiry that need not be perfect to suffice as adequate.

Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. handle cases involving Workers’ Compensation in Pennsylvania. Call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online to schedule a consultation in our Philadelphia office. We represent clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Workers’ Compensation and Illegal Immigrants

By ,

SPG

Under Pennsylvania law, illegal immigrants can apply for Workers’ Compensation if they are injured while working. See, Reinforced Earth Co. v. W.C.A.B. (Astudillo), 810 A.2d 99 (Pa. 2002). In Reinforced Earth, the plaintiff was a maintenance helper and assisted with cutting and welding iron and climbing scaffolds and ladders while lifting steel beams. Id. at 101.  While working, he was struck in the head, neck and back with a steel beam and diagnosed with a concussion, mild head injury and back strain and sprain. Id. Even though he was an illegal immigrant, the court held that he was allowed to receive Workers’ Compensation because the purpose of the law is to protect those who need protection, including those individuals here illegally. Id. at 105. Additionally, the court found that not allowing the plaintiff to receive Workers’ Compensation would reward companies for not inquiring as to a worker’s legal status before hiring. Id. at n. 8.

However, there is a limit to the compensation an injured illegal immigrant worker is allowed to receive. Mora v. W.C.A.B. (DDP Contracting Co., Inc, and Penn National Insurance), 845 A.2d 950, 952 (Commw. Pa. 2004). In Mora, the court held that when an illegal immigrant is able to go back to any type of work, his or her workers’ compensation can be suspended. Id. Mora went from working full-time and earning $800.00 a week to working only part-time and earning only $140.00 a week. Id. The court reasoned that there was a large price gap in the paychecks because the plaintiff was illegal, not because of injuries on the job, and therefore stopped workers’ compensation. Id.

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., our Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys handle many types of legal matters, including immigrant discrimination. To arrange a consultation with a knowledgeable employment lawyer in Philadelphia, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Pennsylvania Court Upholds PHRC Ruling in Favor of Employee Who Alleged Religious Discrimination and Retaliation After Complaining About Bible Quotes on Paychecks

By ,

SPG

In Brown Transport Corp. v. Com., Pennsylvania Human Relations Com’n, Brown petitioned the Court of Common Pleas to review an order of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) that granted relief to a former employee, Stephen Soffer, who asserted claims of religious discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and failure to accommodate. 578 A.2d 555, 559 (Pa. Comm. 1990). This religious discrimination included bible verses on Soffer’s paycheck and religious articles printed in the company newspaper. Soffer complained about the checks and the articles to management, but they refused to either remove the bible verse stamps on the checks or remove the religious content from the company newspaper.. At one point a manager at Brown told the Soffer that he should be grateful to be getting a paycheck at all. Id. at 556. After complaining multiple times Soffer was fired despite stellar performance reviews.  Id. at 559. The PHRC ultimately found in favor of Soffer, noting his impeccable record two months prior to his termination.  Id. at 561.

Brown petitioned the Court to overrule the PHRC based on the following: 1) the PHRC should not have permitted Soffer to add a claim under Section 5(d) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. § 955(d), for retaliatory discharge; 2) that the PHRC’s findings of fact concerning Soffer’s allegations were unsupported by substantial evidence; 3) the PHRC erred in its application of law to the facts by concluding that Brown committed acts of retaliation and harassment against Soffer; and 4) Soffer was precluded by limitations in  in Section 959(f) of the PHRA, 43 P.S. § 959(f), from recovering any sums in the nature of either punitive or compensatory damages.

The Court ruled that Section 12(a) of the PHRA provides that provisions under the PHRA may be construed liberally, and the PHRC properly construed Soffer’s complaint to sufficiently allege discharge. Second, the Court found that Soffer provided sufficient evidence to support his allegations, and upheld the PHRC’s decision that Brown’s witnesses were non-credible as to why Soffer was fired. Third, the Court ruled that the PHRC’s findings were consistent with the evidence such that it did not err in its application of the law to the facts when ruling that Brown committed acts of retaliation and harassment against Soffer. Lastly, the Court relied on Consumer Motor Mart v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 529 A.2d 571 (Pa. Comm. 1987) to support the PHRC’s award of punitive and compensatory damages.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Employment Discrimination Matters

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., our Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys are knowledgeable in all matters related to employment discrimination. To schedule a consultation with a Philadelphia employment lawyer, call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online.

A Single Word can Create Liability for Hostile Work Environment

By ,

SPG

It has long been the case that a single slur or offensive comment is not enough in order to prevail on a hostile work environment claim. However, this is no longer the case after the Third Circuit’s recent decision in Castleberry v. STI Grp., No. 16-3131, 2017 WL 2990160, at *3 (3d Cir. July 14, 2017). On appeal, the Third Circuit overturned the Middle District’s ruling.  In doing so, the Court explained that the “plaintiffs alleged that their supervisor used a racially charged slur in front of them and their non-African-American co-workers…Within the same breath, the use of this word was accompanied by threats of termination (which ultimately occurred).” Id. at 4.  Under these facts, the Third Circuit held that a single offensive slur creates severe conduct that could make a hostile work environment; reversing the long history of prior courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware that require the conduct to be regular. This new standard is a win for future plaintiffs alleging a hostile work environment because it will now be easier to succeed on their claims.

Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., handle cases involving workplace discrimination. Call 215-574-0600 or contact us online to arrange a consultation in our Philadelphia office, where we represent clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Definition and Determination of Spoliation of Evidence under PA Law

By ,

SPG

Definition and Punishments

‘Spoliation of evidence’ is the non-preservation or significant alteration of evidence for pending or future litigation.  When a party to a suit has been charged with spoliating evidence in that suit (sometimes called ‘first-party spoliation’) . . . trial courts [may] exercise their discretion to impose a range of sanction against the spoliator.” Additionally, sanctions for spoliation arise from “the common sense observation that a party who has noticed that evidence is relatable to litigation and who proceeds to destroy said evidence, is more likely to have been threatened by that evidence, than a party in the same position who does not destroy the evidence.

In other words, Pennsylvania courts recognize that a potential remedy for spoliation is allowing the jury to draw an “adverse inference” against the spoliating party.

In federal court, “spoliation occurs where: the evidence was in the party’s control; the evidence is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case; there has been actual suppression or withholding of evidence; and, he duty to preserve the evidence was reasonably foreseeable to the party.” As to sanctions in federal county, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has noted that spoliation ‘may give rise to sanctions which include: dismissal of a claim or granting a judgment in favor of a prejudiced part; suppression of evidence; an averse inference, referred to as the spoliation inference; fines; and attorney’s fees and costs.”

The Test for Determining Spoliation and its Severity

To make such a determination, the court must balance three factors:  “(1) the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and (3) the availability of a lesser sanction that will protect the opposing party’s rights and deter future similar conduct. In evaluating the first prong, the fault of the party altering or destroying evidence, courts must consider both “the extent of the offending party’s duty or responsibility to preserve the relevant evidence, and the presence of absence of bad faith.”

Philadelphia Local Counsel at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Those Affected by Spoliation of Evidence

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., we handle many types of legal matters, including spoliation of evidence. Call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online for local legal counsel in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Trump’s Labor Department Wants Salary Level to Determine Overtime Eligibility

By ,

SPG

Recently, the Labor Department filed a brief in federal court challenging whether the Obama administration had the right to double the threshold for the maximum pay a worker can receive and still qualify for overtime. Employees who earn less than the threshold maximum salary are eligible for time-and-a-half. The Obama administration fought to double the maximum salary threshold from $24,000 to around $47,000. This would have meant that those earning less than $47,000 would be eligible for time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours a week. This would have resulted in four million more Americans being eligible for overtime pay.

However, last year, a federal court blocked the Obama administration’s rule. Now Trump’s Labor Department has said that it wants salary levels to count in deciding who is eligible for overtime, but it continues to hold off on the maximum pay workers can earn and still qualify for overtime. The Department expressly asked the court not to address the specific salary level set by the 2016 final rule. The Trump administration only requested a ruling on whether the department has statutory authority to set a salary level at all.

Some critics have argued that anything lower than the $47,000 suggested by Obama would adversely affect minority workers. When the Obama administration issued the rule in May of 2016, the Labor Department said that it would go a long way toward ensuring that every worker is compensated for their hard work. Supporters argue that many employees do not even realize that they are eligible for overtime pay.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Advocate for Victims of Unpaid Overtime 

Certain employees who work more than 40 hours a week are eligible for time-and-a-half. If you have only been paid regular wages for overtime hours, you may be entitled to additional compensation. To discuss your case with a skilled Philadelphia employment lawyer at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Protections for Transgendered Employees

By ,

SPG

Recently, a federal court judge ruled that a transgendered woman could proceed with a lawsuit for employment discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). As the law currently stands, transgendered individuals are excluded from protection under the ADA. However, the rights and protections afforded to the transgender community are rapidly expanding at the federal, state, and local levels. This recent decision confirms that, as the District Court judge allowed the case to proceed under a new theory, that gender dysphoria can limit an individual’s major life activities, such as reproduction and social interaction.

The plaintiff, Kate Lynn Blatt, is the first transgendered individual to file a lawsuit under the ADA. She has alleged that her former employer, Cabela’s, a retailer of outdoor equipment located in Hamburg, Pennsylvania, forbid her from using the women’s bathroom and required her to wear a name tag displaying her male birth name. Blatt also alleges her co-workers referred to her as “he/she,” “freak,” “ladyboy,” and asked her questions about her genitals. Eventually, her employment terminated when her employer alleged that she threatened a co-worker’s child at work. Blatt denies this occurred. She subsequently sued Cabela’s alleging that she was mistreated and fired based on her gender-identity-related disability, or gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is a condition where the person feels like their psychological identity differs from their biological gender. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) does not classify transgender as a disorder, however, gender dysphoria is a type of anxiety that may require psychological medication and treatment.

Cabela’s filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that the ADA expresses excludes gender identity disorder as a disability. The court denied Cabela’s motion, leaning on Blatt’s citation to the legislative history of the act as intended to protect historically and politically marginalized individuals based on an immutable characteristic.

The District Court judge sidestepped the issue as to whether the ADA was constitutional, based on the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. He determined that the case could proceed on grounds that the law should be broadly construed to give individuals with disabilities recourse to pursue claims against their employers for discrimination.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Victims of Discrimination

The laws surrounding LGBTQ rights and protections is rapidly evolving. Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. stay up to date on the most recent developments for LGBTQ rights in the employment litigation context. If you suspect that you have been discriminated against based on your sexual identity or other characteristic, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. We can help you determine whether you have a viable claim and advise you on how you should proceed.

Third Circuit Endorses Medical Resident Claims

By ,

SPG

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently addressed an important question: whether medical residents who allege sexual harassment and retaliation should be treated as employees, students, or both. This is a critical distinction because it determines whether a plaintiff can file a claim under Title VII, or Title IX—each law has different remedies and ramifications for plaintiffs. The court determined medical residents should be treated as both students and employees in this context.

Case Background

Mercy Catholic Medical Center in Philadelphia has four accredited medical residency programs. The unnamed plaintiff was enrolled in one of these programs in 2011, during which time she alleges that the director of the residency program sexually harassed her. She complained to Mercy’s Human Resources Department, which allegedly took no action. The woman further claims she was ultimately removed from the program at the Director’s suggestion in retaliation for rejecting his advances.

The victim filed suit against Mercy under Title IX. The federal district court dismissed her complaint on grounds that Mercy’s residency program was not an “educational program,” and even if it were, she still needed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The court noted that Title VII is the exclusive avenue for relief for employment discrimination claims.

On appeal, the court considered whether the residency program was an “educational program” under Title IX. The court adopted a decades-old definition used in O’Connor v. Davis, which stated that an educational program is one that has features “such that one could reasonably consider its mission to be, at least in part, educational.” According to the court, the analysis as to whether a residency program is educational is a mixed question of law and fact.

The court ultimately found that Mercy falls within the parameters of Title IX, noting that the medical center accepts federal Medicare payments to fund its programs. Its residents are enrolled in a regulated program of study and training, which requires students to work closely with faculty, attend lectures, and take annual exams.

The court found that as the plaintiff was also an employee, she had to bring her claim under Title VII, which requires an exhaustion of administrative remedies before a plaintiff can avail themselves of the judiciary. However, the court further determined that she was not precluded from bringing a private cause of action under Title IX.

The case set forth a list of factors for courts to examine when determining whether a program is a Title IX “educational program or activity,” and as such, is precedential. However, the Third Circuit’s opinion failed to answer the question regarding whether Title IX plaintiffs have the same rights as those who seek protection under Title VII. This, along with several other questions, remains unclear.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Cases Involving Employment Discrimination and Sexual Harassment

Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. handle employment law and sexual harassment claims throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. To discuss your case, call us today at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or contact us online.

Court Allows CNA Overtime Case to Proceed

By ,

SPG

The Third Circuit has affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss or stay a lawsuit, whereby a group of certified nursing assistants (CNAs) in New Jersey allege violations of their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The CNAs, who were employed at the same skilled nursing facility, claim that they were unlawfully denied overtime pay and meal breaks. The case is now poised to proceed to trial.

The case was initially filed in 2013, when three CNAs employed at Alaris Health in Cherry Hill, New Jersey alleged that their employer’s parent company failed to pay them overtime pay, and that they were only rarely permitted to take meal breaks because the facility was so understaffed. The plaintiffs further claim that half-hour meal breaks were automatically deducted from their total hours worked, even if they were not permitted to take a break, or were interrupted during mealtimes to return to work. Their complaint also alleges that they were not being paid for overtime during weeks in which they worked more than 40 hours. The plaintiffs made these claims on behalf of themselves, as well as the entire class of CNAs employed at Alaris between 2010 and 2013.

The defendant parent company, Silver Care, asserts that the CNAs’ union negotiated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that requires these types of disputes to be resolved by an arbitrator. When the plaintiffs elected to file their case in federal court, Silver Care moved to dismiss.

The District Court disagreed with the defendant, finding that although interpretation of the terms of the CBA is a factual dispute, the plaintiff’s claims regarding FLSA violations did not depend on disputed interpretations of CBA provisions such that arbitration is necessary. The Third Circuit recently affirmed, also finding that the dispute did not need to be resolved through arbitration.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Overtime Disputes

If you suspect that you have been wrongfully denied overtime pay, you may have a valid claim. Schedule a consultation with a Philadelphia overtime dispute lawyer at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. by calling 215-574-0600 to discuss your legal options or contact us online today.

House Bill Permits Employers To Offer Paid Time Off In Lieu of Overtime Compensation

By ,

SPG

The Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017 (H.R. 1180) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May, and will soon go before the U.S. Senate. If passed, the bill will amend the existing Fair Labor Standards Act in a manner that many employees will not favor. Under the FLSA, employers are required to pay time-and-a-half to employees who work over 40 hours a week. The new legislation would allow employers to offer comp time in lieu of time-and-a-half pay to non-exempt workers who work more than 40 hours in a week.

Opponents of H.R. 1180 note that its flexibility is limited. Under the rule, employees must give reasonable notice to employers, and the workplace must not be unduly disrupted with time-off requests. Such language leaves open the possibility for employers to deny requests for time off when employees need it most, for example if an unforeseeable family emergency arises.

Critics also argue that despite built-in protections against coercion, the bill may not protect employees against preferential treatment. When employers create work schedules, they may decide to give overtime hours to those who choose compensatory time off, putting those who are dependent upon overtime pay at a disadvantage.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. represent employees in Wage and Overtime Dispute Cases

If you are involved in a wage and overtime dispute, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can help you obtain the compensation you are owed from your employer. To schedule a consultation in our Philadelphia offices, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.