Category: Employment Law

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.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Liability for Temp Employees

By ,

A recent Third Circuit decision overhauled previous notions of non-liability for temporary employees.  Typically, a temporary employee is thought to be the liability problem of the staffing agency that places the employee. The Third Circuit’s decision in Faush v Tuesday Morning, Inc. suggests otherwise. In this case, Plaintiff Matthew Faush and two other employees were ordered to clean up trash in the back of the store. When Faust complained about the assignment he was told by the store manager that minorities were not allowed to work in the front due to risk of theft. Faust was then fired shortly after. The district court decided that Faust was not an employer and could not be liable under the discrimination statutes.

The Third Circuit Court examined the factors and ruled that the company was liable for its temporary workers because it: indirectly paid Faush’s wages, had the power to demand replacement workers, gave assignments, and directly supervised the temporary workers.  Individuals employed by third party staffing firms may have a relationship not only with the staffing agency, but with employers as well, and that relationship should be closely examined when dealing with incidents involving liability. Individuals employed by staffing agencies should carefully review their contracts to ensure that such agreements provide adequate protection against potential adverse actions taken by the employer.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Philadelphia Uber Drivers Sue Uber for Wage Violations

By ,

Ride-Sharing company Uber and its Philadelphia subsidiary Gegen LLC are named defendants in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania wage laws.  Plaintiffs include three Philadelphia UberBlack drivers filing on behalf of current and former Uber drivers. The drivers claim that Uber misclassified them as independent contractors instead of employees, thereby avoiding the need to pay Uber drivers hourly and overtime wages, as well as avoiding various state/city taxes.

UberBlack drivers are required to pay Uber 25% of their earnings as well as regulatory fees, vehicle payments and insurance premium payments. These payments that drivers need to make to Uber, Plaintiffs claim, endangers their ability to earn a living.  Plaintiffs also allege that since they are not classified as Uber employees, Uber is able to avoid providing any type of benefit to drivers as well as charging them for business expenses obtained by the company.

Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief requiring Uber to come into compliance with state, city and federal laws.

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

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: OHSA- Tightening Policies and Increasing Penalties

By ,

For the first time in 25 years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can significantly raise penalties. A small provision in the recently passed Bipartisan Budget Act will allow an increase in penalties of up to 82%. Today, the maximum penalty any employer can receive is $70,000. As these fine limits have been in place since 1990, many larger businesses could see these penalties as the cost of doing business, rather than as fines.

Recently, two local construction companies are facing tens of thousands of dollars in fines after OSHA issued citations when it was discovered that these companies where breaking strict safety polices. One violation included failure to report the hospitalization of a worker who fell 40 feet according to the US Department of Labor. The second company to violate the OSHA’s polices must pay $70,000 in penalties after a makeshift platform fell apart at the site of a residential development in West Chester according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The worker who was injured suffered permanent damages included paralysis from the waist down.

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

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Pittsburgh Paid Sick Leave Act Ruled Invalid

By ,

Less than six months after being signed into law, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County has ruled that the Paid Sick Leave Act is invalid and unenforceable. The law required employers to provide employees a minimum of one hour of paid sick time per thirty-five hours worked, with the minimum accrual dependent upon the number of employees.

Plaintiffs claimed that the city does not have the authority to enact the ordinance under what is known as the “Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law”. This law states that a “home rule municipality, such as Pittsburgh, ‘shall not determine duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations and employers’ unless expressly provided by statutes”.  The Court determined that the Act did just that, in violation of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law. As a result of this case, companies with operations in Pittsburgh need not update their sick and paid leave policies.

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

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: “Cadillac Tax” Delayed until 2020

By ,

On December 18, 2015, President Obama approved a spending and tax package that includes a two-year delay of the so-called “Cadillac Tax”. This tax will impose a forty percent excise tax group health plans to the extent their total annual premium costs exceed $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. This tax is intended to motivate employers and carriers to find a way to reduce the costs of employee health coverage.

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

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers: Lawsuit Against Merck for Unpaid Overtime

By ,

Pharmaceutical giant, Merck & Co., is currently involved in an employment class action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs include 26 full time employees from the company’s pilot plant in Rahway, New Jersey. The lawsuit claims that the employees were not compensated for the extra 45 minutes they were required to work every day before their shift officially started. In addition, the company allegedly retaliated against the employees’ complaints by threatening to close the plant and take further disciplinary actions against the employees if they continued to protest the unpaid work.

The lawsuit alleges that the overtime work responsibilities were exactly the same as those performed during the regular shift, and that the additional 45 minutes per day added up to 3.75 hours per week of unpaid overtime work.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represents Employees in Overtime Claims Lawsuits

The Fair Labor Standards Act, and other state laws, protect employees’ rights to receive compensation for overtime hours worked. If your rights have been violated by your employer and you have not received the payment you deserve for hours worked, contact Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green so that we may examine the details of your case and pursue the best course of action on your behalf. For a confidential consultation, call our offices at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

 

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Dental Practice Lawsuit for Sexual Harassment

By ,

Employees of an Atlantic City dental practice have filed a lawsuit in Superior Court, alleging that two male co-workers subjected them to sexual harassment. The group of current and former employees claim that their co-workers made unwanted sexual advances, inappropriate comments and touched them without their consent. According to the lawsuit, the dental practice where they worked functioned as a “sexual harassment playground.”

The female employees assert that they were required to submit to these unwanted sexual advances or they would face adverse employment consequences. They claim that submitting to the sexual harassment was a condition of their employment and any employees that did not comply were either punished or ignored.

According to the lawsuit, the owners of the dental practice were complicit with the harassment. The employees assert that the owners were fully aware of the male employees’ actions, and even went so far as to retaliate against female employees who complained about the harassment. According to the plaintiffs, the owners responded to complaints of sexual harassment with termination, disparate treatment and increased scrutiny of complaining employees.

The plaintiffs have requested a jury trial. They are seeking money damages, attorney’s fees, and the costs of the lawsuit.

Sexual harassment is one of the most well known types of employment discrimination. Unfortunately, sexual harassment in the workplace is an all too common matter. If you believe that you are the victim of sexual harassment and your employer has not protected you from mistreatment, you may be entitled to take legal action.

Philadelphia Sexual Harassment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Protect the Civil Rights of Employees

As the victim of sexual harassment, you may feel powerless, frightened and vulnerable. However, sexual harassment on the job need not be tolerated. An experienced Philadelphia sexual harassment lawyer at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help you to protect your job, stop the harassment or seek money damages. Our experienced attorneys stay on the cutting edge of recent litigation and have a thorough understanding of how the courts define sexual harassment. Speak to a lawyer today to help you determine the best course of action for your case. We will advocate zealously on your behalf to protect your rights. With offices in Philadelphia, we represent clients in Philadelphia and South Jersey. Call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out an online contact form today.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Sizeable Settlement for Colorado Sexual Harassment Victims

By ,

A Colorado potato packing plant has settled a lawsuit alleging a history of sexual harassment. According to the suit, female employees were subjected to sexual harassment at the MountainKing Potatoes plant in Monte Vista, CO for more than a decade. The plant’s operators will distribute a sum of $415,000 among 13 employees represented in the suit, and an additional $35,000 to cover legal fees for Colorado Legal Services, who helped some of the women file their complaints.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the lawsuit against Smokin’ Spuds, Inc. and Farming Technology, Inc. on behalf of four female employees, alleging that a male supervisor had harassed women at the plant since 2001. The 13 employees in the suit were subjected to repeated inappropriate touching, lewd comments and propositions. The suit also claims that three of the women were fired after complaining about the harassment.

The supervisor was terminated as part of the settlement and the plant’s operators will provide discrimination law training and post signs notifying workers of their rights. They have also sent letters of apology to each of the women involved in the suit.

EEOC Increases Efforts to Protect Agricultural Workers

Agricultural workers seem to be at high risk for this type of harassment, as many are not aware of their rights and cannot afford legal representation. The MountainKing suit is one of several recent harassment cases in growing and packing facilities across the United States, including a $17 million settlement involving a produce packing operation in Florida. These cases seem to disproportionately affect immigrant women who cannot advocate for themselves, either because of a language barrier or simply because they do not know what resources are available to them.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Protect Rights of Sexual Harassment Victims

Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle all types of employment discrimination and harassment cases. We will give your case the personal attention you deserve and prepare a sound legal strategy to aggressively defend your rights. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we help victims of sexual harassment throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online to review your case with a knowledgeable sexual harassment lawyer.