Category: Employment Law

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Male Employee Sues Yahoo for Sexism

By ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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.

Wrongful Termination Lawyer Philadelphia: Subjective Employee Rating System

By ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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 ,

SPG

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.