Category: Employment Law

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Ruling in Tyson Foods Overtime Case

By ,

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a group of pork processing plant workers, who argued that they were entitled to overtime wages for time spent “donning and doffing” (changing in and out of soiled work clothes). The Court held that statistical evidence could be used to determine overtime wages, because the employer failed to keep proper records. Some have speculated that this will lead to an uptick in litigation because plaintiffs in other class actions may now be able to use statistical evidence to support their cases.

The plaintiffs in this case were 3,344 workers employed in the kill, cut and retrim departments of a Storm Lake, Iowa pork processing plant owned by one of America’s largest meat producers, Tyson Foods, Inc. The employees specifically alleged that Tyson violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law. The workers filed their suit in an Iowa Federal District Court in 2007. The Court certified the class action the following year.

Details of the Trial

At trial, the plaintiffs submitted a study performed by Kenneth Mericle, an industrial relations expert. Mericle had examined how long it took employees to don and doff their work clothes. After examining 744 videotape recordings, Mericle concluded that it took the cut and retrim workers approximately 18 minutes per day to don and doff, while the kill employees spent just over 21 minutes a day changing clothes. After reviewing this evidence, the jury awarded the workers $2.9 million in wages.

Tyson appealed the ruling, but the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found that because Tyson neglected to keep proper records, the representative evidence of the videotapes could be relied upon to estimate the hours that plaintiff employees had actually worked. Although some have expressed concern that allowing class action plaintiffs to rely on representative evidence will overburden the courts, the court limited its ruling to the facts and circumstances presented in this case alone. If future class action plaintiffs wish to rely on representative evidence, they will have to demonstrate that use of statistical methods is fair in their particular circumstance.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green Pursue Compensation for Workers Denied Overtime Pay

Federal and state laws require most employers to pay one and one half times the regular rate (“time and a half”) for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. In Pennsylvania, workers may collect unpaid overtime up to three years after the date the pay was earned.

If you have been denied overtime wages, the experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will fight to get you the compensation you deserve. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Class Action Lawyers: SCOTUS Denies Walmart Appeal

By ,

In a four-1 ruling earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to review a 2006 jury decision in a class action, wage-and-hour lawsuit filed on behalf of Walmart employees in Pennsylvania.

In 2006, plaintiffs in Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores and Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores were awarded $187.6 million in damages for wage-and-hour violations based on claims that the retail giant failed to properly pay employees for missed rest breaks and off-the-clock work. Walmart sought to have the decision overturned by the Supreme Court, arguing that the plaintiffs had not presented sufficient proof of class-wide commonality, only proof of individual claims. Walmart also argued that the determination of liability and damages in the case represented a “trial by formula” that had been disapproved by earlier Supreme Court decisions.

According to the majority opinion, however, liability in this case was not determined by a formula, but by evidence of breach of contract and wage-and-hour violations which were established by Walmart’s employment policies, business records and internal audits. Interest accrued since 2006 brings the current class action award to approximately $244 million.

Philadelphia class action lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have been successfully representing plaintiffs in employment lawsuits for over 50 years. For more information about overtime violation claims and employment law in Pennsylvania or New Jersey, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Disability Discrimination Award

By ,

Employee Wins $5.5 Million in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

On December 28, 2011, Plaintiff Albert Gucker, a 61 year old mechanic, was constructively discharged from Defendant, U.S. Steel Corp. Plaintiff had work restrictions regarding lifting and climbing, due to an arthritic knee since 2003.

On that day, Plaintiff underwent a return-to-work exam by a company physician, after returning to work following surgery. The doctor approved him for work with the same restrictions he already had in place. On that same day, Plaintiff was informed by a supervisor that his restrictions would not be tolerated. The following day Plaintiff applied for Social Security disability insurance, and he was determined to be disabled.

Plaintiff alleged that U.S. Steel violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) when he was terminated. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, he had received no complaints or negative reports about his job performance, and there were never any safety issues raised regarding his restrictions.

The jury found that Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability, and he should have received accommodations. The jury further concluded that U.S. Steel terminated Plaintiff based on his disability with the knowledge that it was violating the law, or may have been violating the law.

Following a two-week trial, the jury determined the Plaintiff entitled to receive $5.55 million, including $5 million in punitive damages and $550,000 in compensatory damages.

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

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Whistleblowing Cause of Termination

By ,

Pennsylvania Plaintiff Fails to Demonstrate that Whistleblowing Caused Her Termination

Although Pennsylvania lacks a common law action for wrongful termination of at-will employees, such employees may have a cause of action in several limited circumstances. For a wrongful termination claim to be viable, the at-will employee must show that the termination violates a clear mandate of public policy.

In the recent Pennsylvania case, Auman v. Family Planning Plus, Plaintiff, an at-will employee of Family Planning Plus accused her employer of terminating her for whistleblowing. Plaintiff made a claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law (“PWL”) – a public policy exception to the at will doctrine. To be successful under the PWL, Plaintiff needed to show both a protected report of wrongdoing and a connection between the report and termination showing cause.

Plaintiff made several allegations of misconduct on the part of her employer and filed complaints against Family Planning Plus.  However, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s accusations did not show concrete facts linking the whistleblowing to her termination. Plaintiff was not specifically directed to not file a report, and the Court found that there was no indication that her whistleblowing caused any adverse action toward Plaintiff. The Court stated that vague and inconclusive circumstantial evidence fails to satisfy this initial burden. If Plaintiff had shown that her whistleblowing negatively affected her career and resulted in her termination, the burden would have shifted to Family Planning Plus to show a separate and legitimate reason for the adverse action suffered by Plaintiff.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Retaliation Claim Proceeds in Court

By ,

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Allows Employee’s Retaliation Claims to Proceed

In Betz v. Temple Health Systems the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of Plaintiff, allowing her to proceed with her retaliation claim against Defendant Temple Health Systems.

While working at Temple Health Systems, Plaintiff, a registered nurse, repeatedly complained to her supervisors and executive management about persistent sexual harassment, inappropriate touching and groping. Temple Health Systems Plaintiff’s allegations and determined that her complaints did not amount to sexual harassment or retaliation. Plaintiff then filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Shortly thereafter, Temple Health Systems suspended and then fired Plaintiff. Temple Health Systems alleged that the suspension and termination were not in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, but rather the result of a serious medical error that Plaintiff committed, which she subsequently attempted to hide by altering patient records.

In Betz, the Court found that “the employer’s statements in combination with the relatively short timeframe between the filing of the employee’s EEOC charge and her suspension formed the basis for establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII and the PHRA.” The Court also found that the Temple Health System’s proffered reason was sufficient to allow a factfinder to conclude that the employer suspended and terminated the employee for a legitimate non-discriminatory reason. However, the Court found there was sufficient evince of pretext because a factfinder could reasonably draw such a conclusion because a manager told Plaintiff that she would be fired if she kept on complaining, and that ‘[i]f you don’t shut your mouth, you’re next because you already complained and we’re sick of hearing from you’; and after the employee filed her EEOC Charge, the manager told her that she ‘made a big mistake by going to the EEOC.’”

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Male Employee Sues Yahoo for Sexism

By ,

A former editor at Yahoo has filed a lawsuit alleging that female managers discriminated against male employees in both their hiring and termination practices. According to the plaintiff, the tech-giant’s quarterly performance review (QPR) system was arbitrary, and it was used as a screen to accommodate management’s subjective biases and personal opinions to the detriment of male employees. Although there are many stories about gender bias in the California tech industry, they usually involve discrimination against women, making this case unique.

The plaintiff was laid off in 2014 after receiving unfavorable QPR ratings along with around 600 other Yahoo employees. At the time he was laid off, he was on a leave of absence to attend the Knight-Wallace Journalism Fellowship program at the University of Michigan. He was attending as a journalist representing Yahoo.

The ex-employee claims that he was fired after an unsuccessful review through Yahoo’s QPR system. The system allegedly uses a numeric ranking system to evaluate employee performance. Employees who receive the lowest scores are often fired. The lawsuit also alleges that female managers manipulated the QPR program to accommodate their own biases. The lawsuit claims that when male and female employees received equally low scores, only men would be fired—female employees would be permitted to appeal. The suit also asserts that men were systematically denied management positions.

The lawsuit sets forth the premise that there was no transparency in the QPR process—employees did not know who made the final decisions, what numbers were being assigned along the way, or why numbers were being changed. In short, the purportedly objective system was being manipulated.

Male complaints about sex discrimination and harassment have been on the rise in recent years. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), discrimination against men in the workplace is unlawful.

This lawsuit alleges more than just gender discrimination: it also claims wrongful termination and asserts that Yahoo fired employees without just cause, and failed to give the legally required notice periods prior to termination.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Victims of Gender Discrimination

No one should face discrimination because of his or her gender. If you suspect that you may have been terminated or suffered adverse employment consequences solely because of your gender, we will fight to uphold your civil rights. To discuss your case with a knowledgeable employment lawyer in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: EEOC’s New Broad Interpretation of Title VII

By ,

The EEOC’s 2013-2016 Strategic Enforcement Plan addresses the emerging issue of the coverage of lesbian, gay and transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions. Earlier this month the EEOC has taken steps to further its Strategic Enforcement Plan by filing two federal lawsuits alleging discriminatory employment practices by employers based on sexual orientation.

Since Title VII does not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the EEOC is restricted to arguing that employers discriminated based on the employee’s sex and the employer’s notions of traditional sexual stereotypes.

The EEOC has turned to rely on Supreme Court Rulings that state that same-sex harassment is an actionable form of sex discrimination. In the first case, EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center, P.C., the EEOC alleges that Scott Medical harassed its employee Dale Baxely because of his sexual orientation and because he did not conform to Scott Medical’s gender-based expectations, preferences, or stereotypes.

The EEOC hopes to use this case to help expand the protection of Title VII to include lesbian, gay and transgender individuals.

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

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Class-Action Settlement for Wage Underpayment

By ,

On February 11, 2016 the Middle District of Pennsylvania approved a $320,000 class action settlement against meat packer, Vantage Foods Inc. Workers at the meat packaging plant brought suit against their employer for not paying workers for all of the tasks they performed. More Precisely, the complaint alleged that employees were not paid for time spent preparing for their shifts nor for time spent after their shifts when they were required to clean off, remove their gear, and place it in storage. The suit was brought under the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA), which regulates employment standards, including minimum wages and overtime pay.

Vantage alleged that employees were being sufficiently compensated for any time it took to do those tasks, even though the company eventually agreed to settle. In settling the case, Vantage denied committing any employment law violations or wrongdoing with the class-action suit. The workers will receive additional pay calculated in minutes, over a period of almost 2 years.

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

Philadelphia Wrongful Termination Lawyers: Doctor’s Case May Proceed

By ,

On February 24, 2016 the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled to allow Plaintiff, Dr. Muhamad Aly Rifai, to move forward on his claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Rifai v. CMS Medical Care Corporation, et al., Plaintiff alleges that Defendant CMS hired him in May 2011 for a three-year term of employment, which was subsequently renewed a year later. The employment contract provided that either Plaintiff or CMS could terminate the agreement by giving the other party at least 120 days’ notice of the intent to terminate, or CMS could terminate immediately for cause.

Plaintiff alleges that on January 2, 2013, Plaintiff was given 120 days’ notice that he would be terminated on May 7, 2013. However, Plaintiff alleged that only five days later he was terminated for cause, effective May 7, 2013. Plaintiff thereafter filed suit, claiming Defendants fired him due to his Syrian ethnic background, Islamic religious beliefs, and the perception that he was mentally disabled. The Eastern District ruled that Plaintiff plead sufficient facts to allege breach of contract and a claim under the ADA.

The Court ruled that it found “that plaintiff sets forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendants regarded him as having an impairment,” specifically noting how Rifai’s complaint explained that at the time of his termination, defendants told various employees Rifai suffered from a mental impairment and was mentally unstable, unable to safely perform his medical duties.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: White House Announces Revisions to EEOC Form

By ,

President Obama announced that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will begin to collect expanded information on pay data and hours worked from employers with 100 employees or more completing the annual EEO-1 form. There has been an array of action taken place during President Obama’s administration such as increasing minimum wage for employees of federal contactors, creating new protections for LGBT workers, and mandatory paid sick leave.

The EEO-1 is an annual survey completed by most federal contactors that requires employers to provide demographic and categorical information such as sex and race. The gathered data will be used to investigate discrimination complaints, identify pay discrepancies and uncover discriminatory practices. The Commission also intended to aggregate and publish the data in order to give employers an opportunity to evaluate their practices and ensure compliance.

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