Category: Employment Law

Wrongful Termination Lawyer Philadelphia: Subjective Employee Rating System

By ,

Subjective Employee Rating System, Enough to find Age Discrimination in Wrongful Termination Case

Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only forbids age discrimination against people who are 40 years of age or older. The ADEA does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older. Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are both over 40.

A jury recently handed down a $370,000 award to a former executive of AT&T who was wrongfully terminated based on his age. John Gerundo worked at AT&T for 43 years before he was fired at age 65. Gerundo alleged that, without any real reason for his termination, the company simply told him that his position was being “surplused.” However, soon after the termination, he learned an employee 29 years younger was replacing him. It was revealed at trial that AT&T employed an entirely subjective rating system for employees, and AT&T could not explain why Gerundo had a lower rating than the employee replacing him.

Managers would use the rating system to get the results they wanted and had complete discretion in how they would rate their employees. The jury believed the evidence in the record was enough to meet the high burden of proof a plaintiff must show in order to succeed on an age discrimination case.

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

Philadelphia Overtime Lawyer: Recent Reports Highlights “Hidden” Problem of Wage Theft

By ,

A recent report from Sheller Center for Social Justice in Pennsylvania asserts that employers in the state are participating in large-scale wage-theft practices. These practices occur in the form of minimum-wage violations, unpaid overtime, stolen tips, illegal pay deductions and other tactics. The report claims an estimated 128,576 workers experience a minimum wage violation, 105,458 experience an overtime violation and 83,344 experience an off-the-clock violation every week.

Wage theft takes numerous forms in Pennsylvania. Some employers illegally deduct wages from their employees’ paycheck to cover the cost of uniforms, gas and other supplies necessary to perform the job, or make workers pay for such things out of pocket. Another major form of wage violation in PA is employers not paying workers the overtime they are due. In some cases, employers deliberately mislead employees about their right to overtime compensation. Employer tactics to evade paying overtime include drafting confusing employment policies and misclassifying workers as ‘independent contractors” who are not protect by overtime laws.

Currently, Community Legal Services is working with the city council in Philadelphia that would increase penalties and prevent businesses from getting business licensees if they commit wage theft.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: EEOC Is Allowed to File a Single Lawsuit for Multiple Workers

By ,

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) now has the ability to file a single suit on behalf of a group of workers, instead of individually filing separate suits for each worker who experienced discrimination from the same employer. In EEOC v. FedEx Ground Package System, the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled that the EEOC would be able to continue its lawsuit against FedEx.  The EEOC represents 17 individuals who claim FedEx did not make reasonable accommodations for them in their jobs as package handlers.

This decision came down to determining the purpose of the EEOC. First, the court explained the EEOC exists to protect individuals and bring suit on their behalf to remedy employment discrimination. Additionally, the Court stated the EEOC exists to litigate for public interest, not only for individual employees. Prior cases have not allowed the consolidation of claims because the facts in those cases were so specific, it would be too difficult to decide them as a whole. Here, the decision turned on the fact that the employees have multiple facts in common, such as their disabilities and position at the company, which would allow the Court to come to a determination for the group.

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

Wrongful Termination Lawyer Philadelphia: Dauphin County Woman Alleges Former Employer Violated ADA

By ,

A woman in Dauphin County, Harrisburg is seeking compensation over claims she believes she is owed due to wrongful termination. She was terminated after asking for accommodations for her disabilities. On January 4th, 2016, Ebony Stephenson filed a complaint in the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Healthcare Services Group Inc., alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Stephenson was hired by Healthcare Services Inc. in October 2013 and worked as a housekeeper at Defendant’s Spring Creek Nursing Home. Stephenson’s supervisor allegedly made a comment about her knapsack in 2013 which implied that Stephenson was a man. Following the incident she says she requested the number of her supervisor’s superior and accused him of being disrespectful. She was discharged from her position on the same day and claims that she began to suffer from anxiety. She was then rehired the next month by Healthcare Services Inc. but at a different facility. She requested accommodations for her disabilities which were refused. Stephenson was later terminated and alleges retaliation for her accommodation request, which occurred August 2014. This case is currently pending.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Lyft Settles Labor Law Violation

By ,

Lyft Settles Labor Law Violation for $12M and Offers More Job Security

Lyft Inc. agreed to pay $12.25 million and give additional job security to a proposed class of current and former drivers suing the ride-hailing service in federal court, but will not classify drivers as employees. In the dispute, Lyft will also concede its right to terminate drivers at will, pay the costs to arbitrate drivers’ grievances and implement a pre-arbitration process, as well as provide drivers additional information on prospective riders such as their passenger ratings, according to the proposed settlement filed Tuesday.

Driver Patrick Cotter sued Lyft in September 2013 for allegedly classifying its drivers as independent contractors but treating them as full-time employees and taking 20 percent off their tips as an “administrative fee” in violation of multiple state labor laws.

Previously, Lyft’s terms of service stated that the company could deactivate a driver for any reason; now, the ride-hailing company will only be able to do so for one of a list of predetermined reasons, such as a low passenger rating, according to the settlement agreement. Drivers at risk of deactivation, meanwhile, will be given clear notice and an opportunity to present their side. If a driver is deactivated but would like to contest the decision, he or she he can challenge the ruling in arbitration at Lyft’s expense. Drivers will also be able to address pay-related issues in arbitration.

This settlement will have a direct impact on how Lyft’s competitor Uber will respond to similar claims against them. Uber refuses to acknowledge that their drivers are employees and entitled to employee benefits. Lyft’s settlement while not recognizing the drivers as employees extends more job security and benefits for Lyft drivers.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Injury Sustained After Quitting

By ,

A Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision to grant a Claimant’s claim petition was reviewed and granted in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, despite the Claimant quitting before the incident occurred. Marazas v. W.C.A.B. (Vitas Healthcare Corp.). Claimant quit and his Manager informed him that he needed to remove his personal belongings from the truck he had been using. Id. at 857.  Manager escorted Claimant to do so pursuant to Employer’s policy and Claimant, while walking to the warehouse on Employer’s premises, fell and sustained injuries. Id.

Claimant made the case that he was both on Employer’s premises and furthering Employer’s interests when he sustained injuries. Although Claimant quit before he was injured, he was still within the scope of employment because he was acting at Employer’s direction, and thus furthering Employer’s interests.

For more information or to discuss an employment law-related matter, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers Discuss New Jersey Opportunity to Compete Act

By ,

New Jersey employers may find it necessary to update employment and hiring policies to ensure compliance with the New Jersey Opportunity to Compete Act (OTCA), which went into effect on December 8, 2015. Similar so-called “ban-the-box” laws have also been enacted in a handful of other states including Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Rhode Island.

The OTCA is intended to create opportunities for people with criminal records by limiting the use of background checks in hiring practices. The OTCA bars employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history until after a first interview has been completed. Once a first interview has concluded, employers have the right to inquire about criminal history.

For specific information regarding compliance with and exemptions to New Jersey’s “ban-the-box” law, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our team of competent and well-regarded attorneys is well-qualified to handle any legal matters pertaining to employment law.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Jiffy Lube Cheats Employees out of Fair Pay

By ,

A former Jiffy Lube assistant manager (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action suit against a franchise of the auto repair shop in Pennsylvania federal court claiming that policies such as requiring workers to clock out while at work violate state and federal wage and hour laws. The Complaint alleges that Jiffy Lube violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania wage laws by cheating customer service technicians and assistant managers of proper minimum wage and overtime pay. The Complaint says, “the defendants’ policy and practice of forcing its employees to work off the clock is firmly embedded within its culture and specifically referenced in its written operating procedures.”

Customer service technicians and assistant managers are responsible for working on vehicles, including providing oil changes, brake, tire and cooling system services. Those duties aren’t exempt from minimum wage or overtime pay under the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Age.  Despite this, Jiffy Lube allegedly routinely denied those employees pay through by editing workers’ time entries to reduce or remove hours. The auto repair shop also ordered employees to clock out when they weren’t helping customers during scheduled shifts, even though they had to remain at the store. Plaintiff alleges that Jiffy Lube told him that it wasn’t company policy to pay employees for all hours actually worked. He pointed to the company’s regional manager conference in winter 2015, where the Vice President allegedly stated that there was no reason to pay employees for all hours worked if there were no cars at the shop.

Plaintiff is bringing the suit as a collective action under the FLSA and as a class action under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

For more information or to discuss a wage and hour issue under the FLSA, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Rest Breaks for Non-Exempt Employees Should be Paid

By ,

The US Department of Labor filed suit against an employer in Perez v American Future Systems, INC. d/b/a Progressive Business Publications, claiming the employer unlawfully required non-exempt sales employees working in their call center to log off and not be paid for any break time taken by the employees during the work day. These include rests and bathroom breaks that only last a few minutes at the most. The employer’s policy permits employees to take “personal breaks at any time for any reason, but these breaks were unpaid. Any time by the employee not spent working, regardless of the length of the break was to be unpaid.

The court supported its decision finding a Department of Labor regulation on the issue to be persuasive. This regulation essentially stated that rest periods of short length are common in the industry and promote efficiency. The regulation further stated these types of breaks are normally paid for and considered as hours worked. This decision is important because it puts employers on notice that these short breaks should be considered hours worked and warns employers they can be liable in the event they try to discourage employees from taking such breaks.

For more information or to discuss a wage and hour issue, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Police and Fire CBA

By ,

Interest Arbitration under Policeman and Fireman Collective Bargaining Act

“Policemen or firemen employed by a political subdivision of the Commonwealth or by the Commonwealth, through labor organizations or other representatives designated by fifty percent or more of such policemen or firemen, have the right to bargain collectively with their public employers concerning the terms and conditions of their employment, including compensation, hours, working conditions, retirement, pensions and other benefits, and have the right to an adjustment or settlement of their grievances or disputes in accordance to this Act.” 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 217.1 (West).

Collective bargaining may only begin at least six months before the start of the fiscal year of the political subdivision or of the Commonwealth, and any request for arbitration may only be made at least one hundred ten days before the start of said fiscal year. § 217.3. In public sector labor law, there are primarily two types of alternative dispute resolution processes: 1) interest arbitration and 2) grievance arbitration. Interest arbitration is the process by which the parties, through a neutral arbitrator or panel, create a collective bargaining agreement after the parties fail to reach an agreement. Contrarily, grievance arbitration occurs when the parties dispute the proper interpretation or application of provisions contained in an existing collective bargaining agreement. Id.

An interest arbitration award under the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act may embrace only those issues which the submitting party has specifically raised in the notice of arbitration, or which are reasonably considered as included within those issues and not serve as a means to reopen the underlying agreement. Id. (citing 43 P.S. § 217.4) (emphasis added).

Invocation of the interest arbitration process under the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act requires an impasse. The issues must be submitted to interest arbitration for contract formulation by the interest arbitration panel and the issues not so preserved, unless reasonably included within properly preserved issues, are beyond the scope of the interest arbitration process and will not be enforceable. Michael G. Lutz Lodge No. 5, of Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia, No. 42 EAP 2014, 2015 WL 9284242 (Pa. Dec. 21, 2015) (citing 43 P.S. § 217.4).

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