Category: Employment Law

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Termination Outside of Employment Contract

By ,

SPG

Harrisburg Superintendent to Receive $2.4 Million Dollar Settlement after Termination without a Hearing

In 2009, a Harrisburg superintendent was terminated without a hearing, in violation of his employment contract. In Pennsylvania, employers may terminate non-contract employees, also known as at-will employees, for no cause. In Kohn v. School District of Harrisburg, 817 F. Supp. 2d 487 (2011), Gerald Kohn was a superintendent for the Harrisburg School District and had 16 months remaining on his employment contract when he was terminated.

In 2010, Kohn y filed a lawsuit against the Harrisburg School District for wrongful termination and Mayor Linda Thompson for conspiracy. In his Complaint, Kohn alleged that in her campaign for Mayor, Thomas promised to get rid of the current superintendent (Kohn) for his school district’s academic failings. After Linda Thompson was elected Mayor, Kohn was subsequently fired. After several years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement agreement in 2013 for $2.4 million dollars and Kohn dropped the conspiracy allegation against Thompson.

For more information or to discuss the details of your case, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Discrimination Lawyers: Statue of Limitations

By ,

SPG

N.J. High Court Holds Statute of Limitations for Discrimination Claims Cannot Be Shortened by Contract

Despite the court’s general recognition of a private right to contract, in June 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a provision of a contract shortening the two-year limitations period for bringing a claim under the Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) was unconscionable.

In Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., 2016 WL 3263896 (N.J. June 15, 2016), Plaintiff

Sergio Rodriguez applied for a job with the Defendant Raymours Furniture Company. The employment application he signed contained a provision that stated, “I agree that any claim or lawsuit relating to my service with Raymour & Flanigan must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. I waive any statute of limitations to the contrary.” Rodriguez, a native of Argentina and not proficient in English, claimed he did not understand what he was signing, nor did he understand the terms “waive” or “statute of limitations.”

When Rodriguez was laid off from his job, he filed a complaint alleging employment discrimination. The complaint was filed before the two-year limitations period, but after the six-month period stated in the contract. The lower courts found the terms in the application to be clear, concise and not contrary to public policy, and enforced the contract. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, rendering the contract unconscionable. The Court determined that enforcing these kinds of provisions would undermine the integrity of the LAD statute, effectively eliminating claims, and might compel an attorney to file a premature LAD action. The Supreme Court felt their decision was in the interest of public policy, and would further the “public imperative of eradicating discrimination.”

For more information or to discuss the details of your case, call Philadelphia employment discrimination lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Return from FMLA and Retaliation

By ,

SPG

Discourteous “Welcome Back” by Employers after Employee’s Return from FMLA Leave Does Not Constitute Retaliation

An employer is not required to give an employee returning from FMLA leave a courteous welcome back. In Checa v. Drexel Univ., plaintiff Debra Checa took FMLA leave following surgery and the death of her mother. CV 16-108, 2016 WL 3548517, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 28, 2016). Upon returning to work at Drexel University College of Medicine, Checa had a meeting with two of her coworkers regarding her transition back to work and her failure to complete certain tasks before she took leave.  After being criticized for her performance prior to taking leave and not being offered condolences for the passing of her mother, Checa stood up in the meeting and said she quit and then later emailed a Doctor at the college and again reiterated her intention to quit. Checa then attempted to retract her resignation the next morning but the College refused to accept it.

Following the College’s refusal to accept the retraction of her resignation, Checa brought an FMLA retaliation claim against the College. To prevail on a FMLA retaliation claim, the plaintiff must prove that (1) she invoked her right to FMLA-qualifying leave, (2) she suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) the adverse action was causally related to her invocation of rights. Id. Checa argued that both the “first day back” meeting and Drexel’s refusal to allow her to rescind her resignation the next day qualify as adverse employment actions.

The Court held that the “first day back” meeting did not qualify as an adverse employment action for several reasons. First, the meeting did not alter her terms or conditions of employment nor did attending this meeting significantly impact her ability to work or advance in her career. Checa also did not suffer a change in job title with less prestige, a suspension of pay, or a change in work schedule. Lastly, the Court held that the employer’s refusal to accept Checa’s rescinded resignation is not an adverse employment action because they were under no contractual or statutory to do so nor was there a constructive discharge in this instance.  Thus, the Court granted Drexel’s motion for summary judgment.

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

OSHA Fines Epic Health Services $98K After Investigation of Sexual Assault

By ,

SPG

In February of 2016, an employee filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) after being sexually assaulted by a home care client. The health care worker was employed by AndVenture, which does business as Epic Health Services, and is one of the largest providers of pediatric home health and therapy services for medically frail and chronically ill children.

Prior to OSHA’s investigation, Epic Health had received numerous prior complaints of sexual and physical assaults by employees while working. OSHA found that Epic Health willfully violated regulations involving workplace violence and that Epic Health had no system for reporting threats or incidents of violence. In addition to the citation, Epic Health must also pay a $98,000 fine for the hazards employees encountered while on the job.

Epic Health has fifteen business days from receipt of the citations and proposed fine to comply, request a conference with OSHA’s area director, or contest the findings before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Advocate for Victims of Work-Related Sexual Assault

If you believe your employer is in violation of the law or your company’s code of ethics, call us immediately. Schedule a consultation by submitting an online contact form or calling 215-574-0600 to discuss your case with one of our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green.

New Jersey Supreme Court Extends Take-Home Exposure Liability to Unrelated Individuals

By ,

SPG

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on July 7, 2016 that companies can be held liable to their employees’ roommates or partners if those individuals are sickened by exposure to toxic substances carried home on workers’ bodies or clothing, known as a “take-home toxic-tort theory of liability.” Schwartz v. Accuratus Corp., No. A-73-14 (N.J., July 6, 2016)

The New Jersey Supreme Court took up the question at the request of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is from 2012 and was originally filed in Pennsylvania state court, but was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A woman named Brenda Schwartz brought suit against Accuratus Ceramic Corporation, a ceramics manufacturer that has a facility in Warren County, New Jersey. Accuratus manufactures and uses products containing beryllium, which can cause chronic beryllium disease, and lead to scarring of the lungs. Schwartz was diagnosed with the disease, and claimed it was due to exposure to her then-boyfriend, now-husband, and his roommate’s clothes. Both men worked at the facility.

The district court found that Accuratus had no duty to Schwartz under New Jersey law, because Schwartz was not the spouse of either man, distinguishing the case from a prior decision in which the New Jersey Supreme had extended duty in these kinds of cases to employees’ spouses. Schwartz appealed to the Third Circuit, and the Third Circuit asked the New Jersey Supreme Court for its views. The Court did not establish a bright-line rule, but stated that liability could be established on a case-by-case basis by analyzing a number of factors. Factors to be taken into account include the employee’s relationship to the exposed individual, the foreseeability of the individual’s exposure, and the toxicity of the substance in question.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Offer Exceptional Legal Guidance 

The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green keep up-to-the-minute on employment issues that matter to our clients. To discuss your case, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: On-Call Pay Constitutes Retirement-Covered Compensation

By ,

SPG

In Czarnecki v. State Employees’ Ret. Bd., the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that a physician’s compensation for on-call time should be included in the calculation of his retirement benefits. 1225 C.D. 2015, 2016 WL 3615573 (Pa. Cmmw. July 6, 2016). Thomas Czarnecki was a Staff Physician of the Department of Public Welfare at the Harrisburg State Hospital from 1981 up until his retirement in 2005. Czarnecki volunteered to provide on-call service to ensure 24-hour patient care. The Department ultimately stopped reporting Czarnecki’s on-call hours to the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System, which resulted in Czarnecki not receiving retirement credit for his on-call service for the five years leading up to his retirement.

After filing a complaint regarding the calculation of his retirement benefits, the State Employees’ Retirement Board ruled that Czarnecki’s on-call time should not be used in calculating his final average salary, which is used to determine the amount of an employee’s retirement benefits. On review of the Board’s decision, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed and held that on-call pay does constitute retirement covered compensation since the payments for on-call service were both regularly made and contractually owed. The Court concluded that the State Employees’ Retirement System erred in excluding it from the calculation of Czarnecki’s retirement benefits and thus remanded the case for a recalculation of his benefits.

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

Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent clients in a variety of employment-related legal disputes. To discuss a possible claim, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Scope of Peer Review Protection Act

By ,

SPG

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted a petition for allowance of appeal on July 7 to take up the question of whether peer reviewed documents prepared by a health care facility’s third-party contractor are privileged under the Peer Review Protection Act (PRPA). Reginelli v. Boggs, No. 1584 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct., Oct. 23, 2015).

PRPA is a statute that incentivizes healthcare professionals to police themselves by making both the proceedings and records of a peer review committee confidential in any civil action. The goal of the statute would be to invoke honest and critical evaluations of decisions of medical professionals by their peers, and improve the quality of medical care.

The lawsuit, Reginelli v. Boggs, involves a negligence suit against Monongahela Valley Hospital Inc., and Dr. Marcellus Boggs. Boggs, although a physician in the hospital’s emergency room, was actually an employee of an independent contractor. When plaintiffs moved to compel discovery of peer review documents prepared by Boggs’ supervisor, questions regarding privilege arose. The Washington County Court of Common Pleas ruled that the documents were not privileged, and The Superior Court upheld the ruling. The Superior Court stated:

“The hospital therefore cannot claim that the file is the hospital’s privileged peer review, since, as the trial court noted, ‘it is untenable that the hospital could claim a privilege for documents that it neither generated nor maintained.’ Thus, any privilege that may exist regarding Dr. Boggs’ performance file cannot be invoked by the hospital.”

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in the Healthcare Industry

The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green offer high quality legal services in all employment-related matters. To discuss your rights and legal options, contact us online or call 215-574-0600 today.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Ernst & Young Qui Tam Case

By ,

SPG

A Ninth Circuit panel upheld their decision to dismiss a Qui Tam action filed against the now defunct Corinthian Colleges and their accountant, Ernst & Young. The two employees who filed the suit claim that both these institutions defrauded the federal government out of billions in education funds from the Higher Education Act through the misuse of quota-based requirement practices.

In addition to standing by their dismissal, the panel also reversed sanctions for $1.5 million against the attorney of the two whistleblowers for what was originally deemed as being a “frivolous” suit.

The two workers whose case was dismissed in 2009 and again in 2013 tried to revive it a third time in May of 2016, claiming that the lower court had not examined any key evidence.

In the previous dismissal, the college stood by its claim that the plaintiff’s attorneys recruited the two employees for the case knowing that they failed to pass two crucial tests required to pursue False Claims Act (FCA) violations: firsthand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing and an ability to present claims that have never been publicly disclosed. In this instance, both employees could not prove that they had firsthand knowledge and the college’s practices had already been disclosed to the government in a similar 2005 case.

Federal whistleblower law protects those who report, either verbally or in writing, to the government any waste or misuse of federal funds by an employer from retaliation or discrimination. Depending on the ruling rendered, an employee may be entitled to between 15 and 25 percent of what the government recovers from its losses. If the government does not wish to proceed with a case, the employee can pursue a claim themselves.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Offer Counsel in Qui Tam Actions

If you or someone you know wishes to report the misuse or waste of government funds or has been retaliated against for doing so, Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can advocate for you. Individuals who have reported False Claims Act violations in good faith should not fear intimidation at the hands of an employer and their lawyers. We will aggressively fight for you. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices located in Philadelphia, we fight for the rights of whistleblowers throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: U.S. Labor Department Announces Increased Penalty Amounts

By ,

SPG

In response to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act passed in November 2015, the U.S. Labor Department announced on June 30, 2016 that it is increasing the monetary penalties for a number of different violations of labor and employment laws. The law, almost self-explanatory by its title, makes it so federal agencies have to adjust their penalties for inflation every year, although the amount of increase is capped at 150 percent of the existing penalty amount. The purpose of the act was to make the penalties as effective as possible while still maintaining their deterrent effect.

Among the most notable increases is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which will see about an 80% increase in maximum penalties. The top penalty for serious violations will rise from $7,000 to $12,471, and the maximum penalty for willful or repeated violations will rise from $70,000 to $124,709. OSHA has not raised its penalties since 1990. The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) will increase its penalty for willful violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act from $1,100 to $1,894. There will also be penalty increases in the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, the Employee Benefits Security Administration, and others.

The new penalty amounts are applicable to civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, for violations that occurred after November 2, 2005.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in All Matters of Employment Law

If you suspect your employer is in violation of labor and employment laws, contact the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green to discuss your legal options. Contact us online or call 215-574-0600 to schedule a confidential consultation with one of our experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Employees do not Need to Expressly Assert Rights Under the FMLA in Order to be Protected

By ,

SPG

In Raimondi v. Wyo. Cnty., an employee was granted partial summary judgment on a FMLA interference claim. No. 3:14cv1918, 2016 WL 2989067 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2016). Debra Raimondi was the Director of Wyoming County’s 911 Center. Raimondi took a leave of absence from the 911 Center to travel to Indiana to care for her sick parents. While in Indiana, she was informed by the Commissioner’s Office that she would not be returned to her prior position and the she would be terminated unless she chose to resign. After returning to Pennsylvania and choosing not to resign, Raimondi was terminated.

In order to state an FLMA interference claim, a plaintiff must establish that establish: (1) she was an eligible employee under the FMLA; (2) the defendants were an employer subject to the FMLA’s requirements; (3) she was entitled to FMLA leave; (4) she provided notice to the defendants of her intention to take FMLA leave; and (5) she was denied benefits to which she was entitled under the FMLA. The key issue for the Court to determine was whether Raimondi had provided sufficient notice of her intention to take FMLA leave. The Court relied on Third Circuit precedent which stated, “while an employee seeking FMLA leave must state a qualifying reason for the needed leave and fulfill notice requirements, the employee does not need to expressly assert rights under the Act or even mention the FMLA.” Since the FMLA does not require an employee to specifically request FMLA leave and Raimondi provided adequate notice to her employer about the reason for her leave of absence, the Court granted her motion for partial summary judgment.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Have Superior Knowledge of FMLA Laws

Philadelphia employment lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green aggressively protect employees’ rights under FMLA and other employment laws. To schedule a confidential consultation, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.