Category: Employment Law

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Retaliation Claims Include Third-Parties Who Did Not Participate in Protected Activity

By ,

SPG

In Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170, 131 S. Ct. 863, 178 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2011), the Supreme Court ruled that a third-party may have a cause of action for retaliation against their employer, even if they were not participating in the protected activity. In this case, an employee filed a complaint against her employer with the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for sex discrimination. Once the employer was put on notice about the complaint filed against them, it only took about three weeks until they fired the employee’s spouse. The spouse then brought a retaliation claim against the employer alleging he was terminated based on his wife filing a complaint. The relevant section of Title VII prohibits an employer to “discriminate against any of his employees … because he has … made a charge … under this title.” The lower courts ruled against the employee finding that he did not have a cause of action since he was not the one to file the complaint. However, the Supreme Court held that the retaliation provision must be read broadly to include a wide range of employer actions.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Handle Employment Litigation Matters 

Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green advocate on behalf of victims of retaliation in the workplace. To discuss your case with one of our knowledgeable and highly skilled Philadelphia employment lawyers, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: VA Employee Wins Suit Against Pennsylvania County After Being Terminated for Political Affiliation

By ,

SPG

In Wren v. County of Luzerne, No. 3:11-CV-1769 (M.D. Pa. May 12, 2016), Richard Wren, the Director of Luzerne County’s Veterans Affairs Department, claimed he was terminated for his support of a county commissioner. Two other county commissioners, who opposed the commissioner that Wren supported, began to terminate employees like Wren from county positions. Following his termination, Wren sued the county alleging that they violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments under the Civil Rights Act, Section 1983, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

The county argued that Wren’s termination was based on non-retaliatory reasons. Specifically, the county presented evidence that Wren had falsified a receipt, which they stated was immediate grounds for dismissal. Wren argued that the county used the falsified receipt as a pretext to terminate him. As evidence that he was terminated strictly for his political affiliations, Wren pointed to the fact that he was never subjected to any disciplinary action before being terminated. He sought to recover $106,000 in back pay and compensatory damages. The jury found that Wren’s political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor for his termination and awarded him $200,000.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Employees in Cases Involving a Wrongful Termination

If you believe that you have been retaliated against or wrongfully terminated because of your political affiliation or other unjust causes, you may be entitled to file a claim against your employer. Contact the law firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green by calling 215-574-0600 today to schedule a confidential consultation with one of our experienced and highly skilled Philadelphia employment lawyers or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Bank of America Discrimination Claim

By ,

SPG

A female banker at Bank of America has filed a lawsuit against her employer, alleging that the company underpays female employees, and that she was retaliated against for speaking up about the company’s illegal and unethical business practices. The banker, a 42-year-old single mother of three children, is seeking over six million dollars plus punitive damages and additional compensation. She filed suit in a Manhattan federal court, where many other cases are pending against Wall Street banks alleging similar claims.

The complainant asserts that during her tenure at Bank of America she suffered from an egregious pay disparity in comparison to her male coworkers, being paid less than half than the man who shares the same title she does.

In addition, she claims that the bank condoned acts of discriminatory conduct committed by her boss, and violated the federal Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections by suspending her after she made complaints about alleged illegal activity that harmed clients of the bank.

She alleges that she was treated more like an intern than a valued employee, and was asked demeaning questions such as whether her eyes have always been so blue. She also claims that she was banned from attending important client events.

She has accused the bank of other unlawful activities unrelated to discriminatory practices, such as refusing to tell regulators how a colleague falsified trading records to conceal lies he told a major client about prices. She claims that the man who held her same title (structured products chief) was “front running” by purchasing bonds for Bank of America despite knowing that a competitor wanted them, and rigging a debt auction to benefit a favored hedge fund in which Bank of America also participated.

In response, a spokesman for the Bank of America has stated that the company takes all allegations of inappropriate behavior seriously and investigates them thoroughly.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Fight Unlawful Sex and Gender Discrimination

If you or someone you know has been the victim of unlawful discrimination or retaliation, the respected Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help you pursue legal action to hold the responsible parties accountable. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent businesses throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: CEO Harassment Allegations

By ,

SPG

A former president of an Omnicom ad agency has sued the company’s CEO, Alexei Orlov, claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about Orlov’s harassing behavior. The plaintiff filed suit recently in a Los Angeles court, seeking damages and alleging a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The case echoes another recent ad agency discrimination lawsuit where the chief communications officer of J. Walter Thompson accused the CEO of making racial and sexist slurs.

According to the Omnicon lawsuit, at one time Orlov pressured a young female employee who worked on the company’s Pfizer account to get him free Viagra directly from Pfizer, telling her that he needed the medication because he had a young wife.

The plaintiff also claims that Orlov failed to promote a female employee to the position of managing director because she was “too pretty” and no one would take her seriously.

Allegedly, after the plaintiff complained to Orlov about a drunken male co-worker who made inappropriate comments about a female coworker, Orlov dismissed the complaint because he did not want to see the employee reprimanded.

Orlov also allegedly made anti-Semitic comments to a Jewish employee, saying he was miserly with money because he was Jewish.

The plaintiff claims that after complaining to the agency’s global head of human resources and encouraging other staff members to do so, Orlov sent him a text message asking him why he did not first call him directly before going over his head. Less than a month later, the plaintiff was terminated.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Fight for Victims of Harassment and Retaliation

If you are facing harassment or discrimination at work, there are certain steps you can take to protect your rights. The experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle all types of employment-related claims, including retaliation, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, EEOC claims, wage and hour/overtime violations, and more. If you are being harassed, check your company’s reporting requirements and report your concerns to the party designated to receive complaints. To speak to a qualified lawyer about your case, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers: Truck Drivers FLSA Exception

By ,

SPG

Employer of Truck Drivers Who Transported Water to Hydraulic Fracking Sites Does Not Qualify for FLSA Exception Under MCA

In Mazzarella v. Fast Rig Support, LLC, a group of truck drivers who transported water to and from hydraulic fracking sites brought suit against their employer to recover unpaid overtime wages. No. 15-3116, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9687 (3d Cir. May 23, 2016). The truck drivers asserted that their employer violated the FLSA because they often worked more than 40 hours per week but were only paid overtime when they worked over 45 hours in a week. In response to the truck drivers’ claims for unpaid overtime, the employer argued that they were exempt from the FLSA under the Motor Carrier Act. Under the Motor Carrier Act, employers are exempt from the FLSA if they are engaged in transportation between “a State and a place in another State.” 49 U.S.C. § 13501.

The District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held that the employer had not shown the water and drivers were engaged in a “continuous stream of interstate travel” because the water transported involved in the fracking process becomes contaminated and “substantially modified”, resulting in “two separate commercial transactions,” one “before the water becomes tainted” and one after the fracking process is complete. The Third Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court. The Court stated that the employer did not present sufficient evidence that the truck drivers were involved in a “continuity of movement in interstate commerce.”

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

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: EEOC Guides Employers Dealing with Leave and the ADA

By ,

SPG

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a statement on May 9, 2016 to help guide employers in situations regarding Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The EEOC’s statement was meant largely to clarify when and how leave is to be provided in cases of an employee’s disability under the ADA.

As a general note, employees that request leave under an existing policy within the company should have the same access to leave as all other employees. Even when an employee has used up any paid days of leave or if the employer does not have an existing leave policy, an employee may still be entitled to receive leave as a reasonable accommodation, as long as the leave does not create an undue hardship for the employer.

One of the key points the statement explains is that communication is key once leave is requested by an employee. The EEOC calls this the “interactive process”, which allows the employer to obtain information relative to granting leave that is not covered under an existing leave program. Even after the leave has been granted, communication is still very important to determine return dates and conditions upon return for the employee.

You can access the statement from the EEOC here.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Employment Protections to Medical Marijuana in Pennsylvania

By ,

SPG

On May 17, 2016, the new Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) took effect, making Pennsylvania the 24th state to legalize medical marijuana, and contains several significant employment related provisions. The Act states that “no employer may discharge, threaten, refuse to hire or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee regarding an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location of privileges solely on the basis of such employee’s status as an individual who is certified to use medical marijuana.” (Emphasis added). Furthermore, the Act states that it does not require an employer to make any accommodation of the use of medical marijuana on the premises of any place of employment. Employers can still discipline employees who are under the influence of medical marijuana at the workplace when the employee’s conduct falls below the standard of care normally accepted for that position. These employment provisions raise questions on how courts will determine what “falling below the standard of care” for that position.

Employers who adhere to a zero tolerance policy and/or an anti-discrimination policy may need to modify them accordingly. The Act strictly limits the list of medical conditions in which medical marijuana is legally permissible, and smoking medical marijuana is still prohibited; the drug can only be dispensed as pills, oil, creams, liquids, and forms that can be vaporized.

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

 

 

 

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Wal-Mart Retaliation Case

By ,

SPG

Third Circuit Affirms Award of Attorneys’ Fees in Wal-Mart Retaliation Case

A plaintiff does not have to prevail on all of his claims in order to be awarded attorneys’ fees. In Boles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Third Circuit affirmed an award of attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff who succeeded on only one of his claims. No. 15-3128, 2016 WL 2990406 (3d Cir. May 24, 2016). Barry Boles was an employee of Wal-Mart who took unpaid medical leave for several months. Id. at *1. Upon being cleared by his doctor, Boles received a termination letter dated one day after he attempted to come back to work. Id. at *2.

Boles filed a complaint against Wal-Mart alleging retaliation and failure to accommodate based on Wal-Mart’s refusal to grant extended leave in violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination. Id. Boles’ retaliation claim was successful and the District Court granted his motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. On appeal, Wal-Mart argued that the award of attorneys’ fees should be reduced because Boles only succeeded on one of his claims. Id. at *4. The Third Circuit affirmed the awards of attorneys’ fees because Boles’ claims revolved around the same events, witnesses, and facts, and the work of his attorneys’ could not be separated out by claim. Id. It also affirmed the award because Boles achieved overall success due to being awarded back pay, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages. Id.

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

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Arbitration Decision

By ,

SPG

Arbitration Decision from 7th Circuit Leaves Split Among Appellate Courts

In a recent decision, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a health care software company was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it required its employees to waive their rights to pursue wage-and-hour claims in class actions. In the case, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., Lewis brought a claim in federal court against his employer, Epic Systems, asserting they had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by depriving him and a few fellow employees of overtime pay. No. 15-2997, 2016 WL 3029464 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016). Epic Systems moved to dismiss the claim and compel individual arbitration, in light of an arbitration clause requiring groups of employees to bring any wage-and-hour claims against the company only through individual arbitration and prohibiting collective arbitration or class action. Id.  Lewis claimed the arbitration clause was unenforceable because it violated Section 7 of the NLRA, which states that “employees shall have the right to… engage in…concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. § 157. Epic Systems contended that the clause was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Id. Both the district court and the 7th Circuit agreed with Lewis. Id.

This decision directly opposes a decision from the 5th Circuit, leaving a split among the appellate courts and increasing the possibility that the Supreme Court will take up the issue. In 2013, the 5th Circuit overturned a National Labor Relations Board decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., and allowed employers to have these mandatory individual arbitration agreements under the FAA. 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013). This split in decisions will leave a lot of uncertainty, and possibly more lawsuits, for employers not in those circuits who have or want to enforce arbitration agreements and class-action waivers.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Filing Period for Constructive Discharge

By ,

SPG

Filing Period Begins to Run at the Time of Resignation

On May 23, 2016, the Supreme Court decided that for a former employee to bring a constructive discharge claim, the filing period to do so begins once the employee gives his/her resignation notice. In Green v. Brennan, No. 14-613, 2016 WL 2945236 (U.S. May 23, 2016), the plaintiff applied for a promotion, but did not receive the position after being with the USPS since 1983. Id. at *3. Soon after the denial, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging he was denied the promotion because of his race. Id. After the complaint, the plaintiff alleged he was receiving retaliatory treatment from his supervisors, and even accused of delaying the mail, a criminal offense. Id. The plaintiff was investigated for this criminal offense by the Postal Service’s Office of the Inspector General, and ultimately signed an agreement with the USPO. Id. That agreement gave the plaintiff the choice between retiring early or moving to a new location over 100 miles away for a much lower salary, and in return the USPO would not pursue criminal charges. Id. After deciding to resign, the plaintiff contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor to report his complaint 41 days after handing in his resignation paperwork, but 96 days after signing the agreement to resign. Id.

Title VII required a federal employee to consult an EEO counselor within 45 days of the matter alleged to be discriminatory, and this case would then turn based on when the filing time period begins. The Court held that the 45-day clock for a federal employee’s constructive discharge claim begins running once the employee resigns, and more specifically in this case would begin when the employee gave the postal Service his notice of resignation. Id. at *1. The Court came to this conclusion after explaining there must first be a “complete and present cause of action”, and until the employee resigns, there is not a “complete and present cause of action” for constructive discharge. Id.

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