Category: Employment Law

Equal Pay Lawsuits Filed by Female Professors

By ,

Equal pay is a constant fight for women in the workplace. Despite having similar or better credentials, women are still being paid less than their male counterparts. No matter the profession, gender discrimination happens in all workplaces, especially within those with a high population of older men. Women must work harder to prove themselves and may work their entire lives without being paid fairly in comparison to their male co-workers.

A law professor at the University of Texas School of Law recently filed an Equal Pay Act lawsuit due to the unfair pay she received in relation to her male co-workers. This complaint also alleges sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is not the first time that the law professor complained to the university about unfair compensation and sexual discrimination. She speaks out frequently about the pay inequality at the university, despite the school’s verbal negative perceptions of her and her actions.

A Texas judge granted the university’s motion to partially dismiss the law professor’s lawsuit due to a failed causal connection between her pay complaints and receiving the lowest raise of any school faculty member. Her claims are still ongoing.

Ongoing Claims

This is not the first woman professor to bring a lawsuit to court. At least five other equal pay lawsuits have been filed by female professors from various universities since 2016. These lawsuits have been filed due to the way universities determine compensation. Law school deans often have significant say in pay decisions, which can be tainted by gender bias and because many men in the teaching field gain more respect for research and writing, despite their lack of quality and importance in relation to their female co-workers. This increases the dean’s overall opinion of male professors and allows them to raise their salaries.

Gender discrimination and pay gap issues often occur in the workplace. Many situations go unnoticed because women are afraid of the consequences if they mention it to their bosses. The female law professor has been described as poison after she confronted the appropriate parties. Other professors who filed lawsuits also stated that they were removed from important committee assignments and ignored in the workplace. Words and actions like these are why women are afraid to take a stand against pay inequality.

Although there are many obstacles that women face in the workplace, especially when it comes to pay gaps, it is important to fight for equal compensation. Fighting for equal pay is an ongoing battle and requires female workers to stand up for themselves when they feel as though they are being treated unfairly.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Fight for Equal Compensation in the Workplace

If you feel as though your pay does not match your abilities and that you are not being fairly compensated, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. for help. Our dedicated team understands the pay gap frustration and will work hard to ensure you receive proper pay. Gender discrimination is a serious issue that will only get resolved if we continue to fight for the rights of female workers. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

How Should Employees Return to the Workplace During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

By ,

Employers who need employees to return to the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic must have a solid plan in place to ensure safe and compliant workplaces. This plan should take into consideration the guidelines issued by various regulatory agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). As regulations and guidelines change, employers must continue to remain compliant. Working with lawyers who fully know and understand compliance guidelines can help employers make a smooth, safe, and lawful return to work.

How Should Employers Develop a Return to the Workplace Plan?

The best way to start developing a plan is to become familiar with the guidelines, laws, and regulations that have been issued by health agencies and other governing bodies. Topics include the following:

  • OSHA guidelines pertaining to the three phases of reopening
  • CDC guidance on identifying potential exposure to COVID-19 and how to eliminate or lessen exposure
  • Medical monitoring of employees and employee self-reporting of health conditions
  • Confidentiality guidelines
  • Employer and employee rights
  • Safety protocols for visitors, guests, vendors, and job applicants

Another good strategy is to hire an employment lawyer to navigate the sheer volume of requirements and information available. A lawyer can also help employers make a compliant and safe transition back to the workplace.

What Should Employers Include in a Return to Work Plan?

At the minimum, a return to work plan should include the following three phases:

  • Telework accommodations, reduced business travel, and limited in-office work
  • Increased in-office personnel, increase in business travel
  • Unrestricted staffing at workplaces and work sites

Each phase of the plan must address these issues:

  • How to prevent, monitor, and respond to individual cases or a resurgence of COVID-19 in the workplace or community
  • Specific guidelines for hygiene, including mask wearing, handwashing, temperature monitoring, disinfecting, and cleaning the workplace
  • Social distancing plans and how to physically configure the workplace to comply with social distancing
  • Establishing and communicating new policies and procedures on employee travel, employee gatherings, and use of employer facilities, such as break rooms, restrooms, fitness centers, and meeting rooms
  • How to monitor employee health and isolate sick employees
  • Implementing sick leave or other policies to increase flexibility and reduce concerns during the pandemic
  • How to train employees on hygiene and new policies and procedures as a result of compliance with guidelines
  • Educating employees on how to stay safe and healthy outside of work, offering free resources to employees, including masks, hand sanitizer, and information
  • Ongoing workplace hazard assessment to reduce potential areas where the virus can live or spread
  • Clear guidelines for responding to employee concerns, OSHA complaints, and lawsuits

A good first step is to contact an employment lawyer who can counsel on the most appropriate, current, and legal resources available to a business or company.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Businesses Lawfully Reopen and Return to Work

If your company needs direction with its plan to reopen successfully and legally, reach out to the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Our knowledgeable and dedicated attorneys know the COVID-19 guidelines, laws, and regulations issued by regulatory authorities. Fill out our online contact form or call us at 215-574-0600 today for an initial consultation. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Employment, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on How Should Employees Return to the Workplace During the COVID-19 Pandemic?
  Other posts by

Does My Employer Have to Share If a Co-Worker has COVID?

By ,

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) has caused confusion among companies, and employees are unsure about what information they need to share with their employer and what can stay private. COVID-19 is a very serious illness that can cause death, specifically in the elderly and those who have underlying conditions. To keep the virus under control, many businesses and government officials are urging employees to tell their employer if they contracted COVID-19. If a case is publically known, workers can be more wary of symptoms and health precautions in the workplace.

This pandemic has been difficult to control, and confusion still arises over the proper protocols to keep people safe. To help minimize exposure and potential risk, workers who do not feel good or have tested positive for the virus should stay home and report their situation to their immediate supervisors. Although it is recommended for an employee to tell their employer if they have COVID-19, it is not legally required. However, employers are expected to tell their employees if they have been in contact with someone who has the virus at work, but there is no specific rule on notifying employees in the workplace.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) outlines ways to notify employees of a specific case and what to do when in contact with that person. Unfortunately, it is not necessary for an employer to name the specific worker who has been infected. The infected employee is protected by health privacy laws, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers have to report the infected employee to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Being an essential worker during the pandemic is a very challenging and stressful job. Now that more stores and companies are opening back up, it is up to essential workers to keep supplying our country with health services, food, and other necessities. These workers are putting their lives on the line to help others. To make their lives a bit easier, employers should encourage the sharing of information between workers to help control the spread of the virus and keep everyone safe. Although it is not legally required, it could benefit every worker if they know about a confirmed case in the workplace.

Maintaining Safe Work Environments

If a co-worker tested positive for COVID-19, it is important to maintain proper safety protocols to keep everyone else at the company from infection. Always remember to wear a mask, wash hands for 20 seconds, wear gloves when touching public amenities, and keep each workplace clean. To alleviate stress, employers should be actively checking in on their employees and providing them with enough personal protective equipment to keep them safe and healthy while at work. Employers can maintain confidentiality between co-workers, but it is recommended to inform workers of a positive case or outbreak.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Employees and Employers During the Pandemic

If you have been discriminated against or treated unfairly in the workplace due to a COVID-19 diagnosis, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. for legal help. Our dedicated and skilled attorneys are determined to protect your rights and help you receive maximum compensation. Contact us online or call us at 215-574-0600 for an initial consultation. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

How Can I Prevent Workplace Discrimination?

By ,

Most employers understand that they have an obligation to provide their employees with a discrimination-free workplace. While the laws regarding discrimination may be complex, employers can readily implement important protections to avoid discriminatory practices and meet their obligations. The idea is to treat employees fairly and to provide them with unbiased access to employment and advancement.

It is in everyone’s best interests for workplaces to be free of discrimination. From the employee’s perspective, they can thrive if they are given equal opportunities to succeed at work, learn new skills, and compete for promotions. There is good reason for employers to be proactive in providing a discrimination-free workplace. Those with disabilities can contribute most effectively when provided with reasonable accommodations provided by employers. If a worker requires certain accommodations by an employer, the employer should comply.

Best practices have been developed over time and can be implemented in businesses of all sizes. In general, employment decisions, including hiring, firing, and promoting employees, should be based on objective criteria. Work assignments, access to training and education, and opportunities to compete for a promotion should be provided to employees without any particular group being singled out for differential treatment. This is important to remember during the hiring process. When hiring employees, employers should be sure to avoid using the following language:

  • Gender-specific titles and descriptions;
  • If a pre-employment screening test is to be used, make sure it is administered to all candidates;
  • When interviewing, avoid asking questions that seek information on a protected status, such as age, religion, or disability; and
  • Do not ask if a person is married, pregnant, or intends to start a family.

Workplace Policies Against Discrimination

Be proactive by establishing detailed protocols, including written criteria for hiring applicants and for firing and promoting employees. Write up protocols for how employee performance will be evaluated and follow these written protocols consistently.

Having a workplace handbook on the company’s policy against discrimination is a good idea. Work with an experienced employment lawyer when developing a handbook and training materials on maintaining a discrimination-free workplace. There are nuanced differences between federal and state laws, and both should be reflected in the handbook to be used as a reference for training employees on discrimination. Handbooks should also be frequently updated and reviewed.

Provide the handbook to each new hire and every employee. Many employers place anti-discrimination policy language into their general handbook that describes benefits, attendance requirements, and the like. Ask each employee to sign a form indicating they received the handbook. The handbook can be used to develop training for all managers and employees.

A policy against discrimination should also include a complaint processing component. State how employees are to lodge a complaint and explain how they will be handled, from investigation to disciplinary action. It is also very important that employers follow up with every complaint and be consistent with discipline. Federal law requires employers to post a notice explaining the federal laws prohibiting job discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, religion, age, equal pay, disability, or genetic information.

How Can Employers Effectively Communicate with Their Employees?

Communication between employers and employees should be consistent and non-accusatory when matters of discrimination are discussed. Creating a strong employer-employee relationship is very important to prevent discrimination. If an employee does not feel comfortable with their employer, they may not follow guidelines or report any suspected discrimination.

Feedback is vital to establish an anti-discrimination environment at work. Employers should regularly ask how they can improve their anti-discrimination policies, according to federal and local laws, and if employees are experiencing any wrongdoings, such as discrimination or even sexual harassment. When employers openly communicate with employees, it reassures workers that their best interests are being protected.

During conversations, employers should be mindful about their language. If an employer suspects a worker is being discriminatory, they should not start a conversation by accusing them. Employers must take complaints seriously and evidence of discrimination should be provided. Also, disciplinary action must always be incorporated if a worker is being biased, discriminatory, or is harassing other workers. Reports and disciplinary actions must be reported to the company’s Human Resources department.

When Should an Employee Hire a Lawyer?

If an employee feels that their concerns are not being heard, even after discussing discrimination with their employer, they may consider filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), an organization that enforces anti-discrimination policies and makes certain that employers are accountable for their negligent actions.

When an employee wishes to file a complaint, they must notify their employer of the complaint. A Charge of Discrimination will be filed, then the EEOC will interview the employee about their complaint. It is important that employees be thorough with their story and provide evidence of discrimination, such as emails or other forms of written conversations. The EEOC will investigate the employer and determine the next course of action. Complaints should be filed within 180 days.

During this process, it is also extremely beneficial to hire a lawyer. Filing a complaint can be difficult, especially because these matters are often sensitive. An employment lawyer will correctly file a complaint with the EEOC. A lawyer will also construct a case against an employer based on evidence that is provided by the employee. An employment lawyer will know the process and steps to complete when discrimination occurs. They will also be knowledgeable about deadlines and what to do if a case is denied. Additionally, by hiring an employment lawyer, an employer will take the discrimination complaint seriously.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Those Suffering from Workplace Discrimination

If you were discriminated against in the workplace, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can help. We will review your case and fight for the justice you deserve. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania. For an initial consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or complete an online form today.

Are Rideshare Drivers Eligible for Unemployment?

By ,

On July 24th, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a rideshare driver was legally entitled to unemployment benefits, even though he was previously disqualified because he was considered self-employed. In a groundbreaking opinion, the Court held that because Uber controlled and directed the performance and services of a driver-for-hire, he was not establishing an independent business and therefore could not be considered self-employed. This case marks one of the few instances in which a higher court has closely examined the employer-employee relationship between a rideshare driver and the rideshare company.

Facts in the Case

Donald Lowman lost his job as a behavioral health specialist during the summer of 2015. While his application for unemployment compensation was pending, he signed a services agreement with Uber. He began using Uber on July 1, 2015, and thereafter earned between $15 and $22 per hour, bringing in approximately $350 per week. As required by Pennsylvania’s unemployment laws, he reported his earnings to the Unemployment Compensation Service Center. On August 17, 2015, the service center issued a Notice of Determination finding that Lowman’s driving rendered him ineligible for continued benefits because he was considered self-employed.

Lowman appealed the decision and was again denied benefits. He subsequently filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court in 2016. The Court reversed the previous decision, concluding that Lowman was not self-employed. The case moved on, eventually reaching the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which issued the final ruling.

The Court Examines the Definition of Self-Employment

An amendment added to Pennsylvania’s unemployment laws in 1959 states that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week in which he is engaged in self-employment. In Lowman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the Court closely scrutinized the relationship that Uber had with its drivers to determine whether they were independent contractors. The wording of the opinion focused on the issue of control. Although Mr. Lowman used his own car and cellphone, and was responsible for his own maintenance, the Court found that he did not have control over his work for the following reasons:

  • Uber established the rates that drivers charged
  • Uber tracked the movements of its drivers using GPS technology
  • Uber closely monitored the work of its drivers

In essence, Uber controls its drivers much like a manager exerts control over employees in an office.

Partial Victory for Gig Workers

The Court’s ruling set the stage for further advancement for the rights of gig workers in Pennsylvania. Although it does not automatically make them eligible for unemployment, it does open the door for appeals if they are denied benefits. The ruling did not address larger issues, such as whether Uber drivers should be classified as full-fledged employees entitled to health insurance, Workers’ Compensation, minimum wage, overtime, and paid sick leave. However, this decision marks a turning point when viewed in context with other legal decisions, such as California’s recent law that made it more difficult for rideshare companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Continually Monitor Legal Cases Addressing Employer-Employee Relationships

Terminated workers who attempt to make ends meet by driving for rideshare companies may not know that this could disqualify them for unemployment benefits. The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. continually monitor the evolving legal landscape of employment law to provide skilled counsel to workers and businesses. If you have an employment question, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

U.S. Supreme Court Shields Religious Schools from Discrimination Lawsuits

By ,

On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot intervene in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools if those teachers have been entrusted to deliver religious instruction. The ruling has broad implications, potentially stripping away employment law protections from more than 300,000 teachers working at religious schools across the country. It may also impact other employees at Catholic hospitals, camps, and other religious workplaces.

The court reviewed two cases involving job bias claims filed by two Catholic schoolteachers in California. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the plaintiff alleged age discrimination bias because she was told days before her 65th birthday that her contract would not be renewed. In St. James School v. Biel, the teacher was terminated after she requested time off for surgery and chemotherapy treatment. Biel subsequently died of cancer, and her husband continued with the litigation on her behalf.

In writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated that the First Amendment protects the rights of religious institutions to decide for themselves, free from state interference and matters of church government, as well as those of faith and doctrine. The religion clauses in the First Amendment provide that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Alito referred back to a 2012 Supreme Court decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, where the Court ruled that teachers holding the title of minister could not sue for job bias. This ministerial exception bars employees from suing their religious school employers for discrimination.

Justice Alito stated that even though the Catholic schoolteachers in this case did not have the title of minister, their job functions were essentially the same because they were entrusted with providing religious instruction at least part of the week and prayed with the children. Prior to this case reaching the Supreme Court, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco allowed the lawsuits after ruling that the teachers were secular, rather than religious, employees.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that both teachers primarily taught secular subjects and were not required to be Catholic. Justice Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Implications for Future Employment Discrimination Cases

The ruling represents a win for Evangelical religious schools, as well as Catholic institutions. At the same time, it is a major setback for the LGBTQ community whose members gained protections against employment discrimination in a recent Supreme Court ruling. There are numerous state and federal laws protecting individuals from employment discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities in Employment Act. These laws and others make it illegal for employers to treat workers unfairly simply because of their race, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability. Regarding the cases of the two Catholic schoolteachers in California, there was evidence that age and disability discrimination occurred; however, that evidence was not in dispute. The issue was the constitutionality of applying employment law to religious institutions.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor noted that, with this ruling, so long as the employer determines that an employee’s duties are vital to carrying out the mission of the church, the employer can make employment decisions based on a person’s skin color, age, disability, sex, or any other protected trait for reasons having nothing to do with religion, permitting religious entities to discriminate widely and with impunity for reasons wholly unconnected to religious beliefs.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Clients with Complex Legal Challenges

The recent Supreme Court ruling confirms that the field of employment law is continually being revised. In matters of discrimination, the employer-employee relationship can be extraordinarily complex. Our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can help with your employment matter. To arrange an initial consultation, contact us online or call us at 215-574-0600. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Discrimination, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court Shields Religious Schools from Discrimination Lawsuits
  Other posts by

Is a Company’s Best Defense the Employee Handbook?

By ,

Every business that maintains an office and team of employees exposes itself to the risk of harassment lawsuits, discrimination claims, and much more. When these claims do arise in the employment context, one of the most important pieces of evidence will be the employee handbook, should one exist. Even if a handbook already exists, they can quickly become outdated based on evolving law.

The employee handbook should be part of every employee’s onboarding process. New hires should be instructed to read the handbook and sign a document stating they have read and understand everything contained therein. Management should answer questions about handbook policies, but the handbook will speak for itself if there is a concern in the office.

How Does an Employee Handbook Handle Investigations?

The employee handbook should list every policy the company has from sick leave to office parties, travel expenses, and lunch breaks. In addition, a large portion of the handbook should explain what happens if misconduct is reported in the office. The handbook should explain that all incidents of harassment should be reported to an immediate supervisor and include that all reports are investigated regardless of merit.

Supervisors should have a handbook that tells them how to open an investigation, investigate claims, and/or report the claims to human resources. The company should investigate any claims of harassment, collect evidence, conduct interviews, and reach a well-documented conclusion.

Why Does it Matter?

If a company is sued by an employee who experienced harassment, management can point to the employee handbook since the company has laid out all the guidelines it uses to manage these cases. Employees who were terminated because of harassment claims should know they will be investigated and employees who do not report harassment are technically in violation of company policy. Management and employees must refer to the handbook for guidance. If a company does not have an established policy for workplace harassment, it can be sued easily because its employees do not know what to do if harassment occurs.

If management is not certain how to word the employee handbook, they may want a Philadelphia employment lawyer to review the document on their behalf. The company may also want the lawyer to craft a verification document that all employees must sign after reviewing any policies, such as a separate sexual harassment policy, fiduciary duties policy, and/or a drug use policy.

To be safe, management should review these documents every year with their staff. The company’s diligence ensures that employees know what is expected of them, and management can point to employees’ yearly reviews if a complaint is filed.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Navigate Issues Related To Employee Handbooks For Both Employers And Employees

If you would like to find out more about employee handbooks or have a potential lawsuit against your employer involving an employee handbook, reach out to our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. For an initial consultation, contact us online or call 215-574-0600 for assistance. We will review your case and discuss the next potential steps. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Prohibits Discrimination Against LGBTQ Workers

By ,

Discrimination LGBTQ

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling declaring that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unequivocally applies to homosexual and transgender workers. Although about half of the states in the U.S. have laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ citizens in the workplace, this historic decision clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited nationwide. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers against discrimination during any phase of the employment process, including recruiting, hiring, training, assigning tasks, compensation, promotion, and firing.

According to the Williams Institute of the UCLA School of Law, more than eight million Americans in the workforce identity as LGBTQ, and nearly four million of them live in states that lack laws to protect them from workplace discrimination.

In writing the 6-3 opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that sex plays a necessary role in the decision, which is exactly what Title VII forbids. In Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Cases Considered by the Court

 The Supreme Court ruling considered several cases brought to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit where employers admitted to firing employees because they were homosexual or transgender. These cases included:

  • Bostock v. Clayton, County, Georgia: Gerald Bostock worked as a child welfare advocate. Under his leadership, the county won national awards for its accomplishments. After Mr. Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league, he was fired for conduct “unbecoming” to a county employee.
  • Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda: Donald Zarda was employed by Altitude Express for several seasons as a skydiving instructor. He was fired several days after mentioning at work that he was gay.
  • G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Aimee Stephens worked at Harris Funeral Homes Inc. in Michigan. While undergoing treatment for depression, he was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and began exploring the prospect of transitioning. After six years of service with the funeral home, Stephens wrote a letter to management explaining that she planned to live and work full-time as a woman. She was subsequently fired.

Each employee filed a lawsuit alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. The employers in each of these cases did not attempt to deny that they fired these employees for being gay or transgender. Rather, they contended that Title VII does not apply to discrimination on the basis of being homosexual or transgender. Also, the employers argued that the legislators who drafted Title VII would not have expected the law to prohibit discrimination against homosexual or transgender persons.

In response, Justice Gorsuch wrote that while those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result, Title VII has been expanded in the past to protect the rights of pregnant employees or men subjected to harassment at work. Therefore, Title VII can be interpreted so as to protect the rights of LGBTQ employees.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Defend the Rights of LGBTQ Workers

The Supreme Court has made it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ employees in the workplace. If you or someone you know endured discrimination at work during any phase of employment, contact the experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will defend your rights to the fullest extent of the law. Call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out our contact form to schedule an initial consultation. We represent workers throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey from our Philadelphia office.

Philadelphia Employers Banned from Requesting Salary History from Applicants

By ,

According to a recent federal appeals court ruling, employers in Philadelphia may no longer request salary history information from job applicants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit partially reversed a lower court’s 2018 decision that allowed employers to ask about salary history but prohibited them from using the information to determine an employee’s new salary.

In 2017, the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce sued the city, arguing that the Philadelphia law violated the employer’s First Amendment rights. Mayor Jim Kenney, and others who supported the law, said that the practice of requesting a salary history perpetuates the cycle of discrimination resulting in women with lower salaries than men. In fact, studies show that women make only 80 cents for every dollar that a man earns, despite the fact that women make up close to 50 percent of the workforce and are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of families in this country who have children. For women of color, this gap is even higher. They are hopeful that this recent ruling will put an end to that cycle.

Law Expected to be Enforced Soon

It is unclear when city officials will begin enforcing the new law, but it will likely be soon, as they have been given the green light to do so. The law will be enforced by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, and employers who violate the law may face steep fines and litigation. The Chamber of Commerce claims that the law makes it more difficult for companies to determine what a competitive salary offer should be, particularly in such a tight labor market. Although the Chamber can petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision, it is unlikely that it will be overturned.

According to the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, Philadelphia has implemented a number of work-protection legislation in recent years. This latest law is about equality and protecting people’s rights. People have argued that the law will not solve the problem of wage inequality, said a former city councilman, but there is no way to know that unless the law is given a chance.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with Employment Issues

 If a prospective employer requested to see your salary history during the interview process, this is a violation of your rights. The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. have a proven track record in reaching successful outcomes for clients who have a range of employment issues, including those related to fair compensation. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

What is the Department of Labor’s Final Rule on Joint Employer Status?

By ,

In an effort to avoid liability issues, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently updated its joint labor employment status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The DOL published its Final Rule in the Federal Register on January 16, 2020, and it was expected to be effective on March 6th. Prior to the ruling, the tests used by the circuit courts to determine joint employer status were inconsistent and confusing, and they often resulted in increased litigation costs for employers. The Final Rule is considered a positive development for employees and the business community.

Highlights of the Final Rule

The FLSA states that an employee of one company may be considered a joint employee of a second company, depending on how much control the employer of the second business has over the employee’s work. As a result, the joint employer may be held jointly liable for minimum wage or overtime payments to non-exempt workers. The Final Rule uses a four-factor balancing test to determine joint employer status in situations in which another employer benefits from an employee’s work. To determine whether a second company is a joint employer, the DOL will consider the following factors:

  • The employer hires or fires the employee
  • The employer is responsible for supervising and controlling the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree
  • The employer determines the rate and method of payment
  • The employer is responsible for maintaining the worker’s employment records

The Final Rule states that joint employer status will not be based on one single factor, and the weight given to one of these factors will depend on the specific scenario. In addition, the extent to which an employee depends on a potential joint employer financially will not determine joint employer status unless other factors are involved as well. According to the DOL, the following are factors that are not relevant to determine FLSA joint employer status:

  • The potential joint employer is operating as a franchisor or using a similar business model;
  • The potential joint employer is in compliance with all legal, health, and safety obligations;
  • The potential joint employer’s contractual agreements with the employer require quality control standards to ensure consistent quality of the work, brand, or business reputation; or
  • The potential joint employer provides the employer with an employee handbook, allowing the employer to operate a “store within a store” arrangement, offering an association health plan or retirement plan, jointly participating in an apprenticeship program, or other similar business practices.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients with Employment Status Issues

The Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. have a proven track record of litigating all areas of employment law. Our skilled legal team has a thorough understanding of the Final Rule and the impact it has on joint employer status. To schedule an initial consultation with one of our highly experienced employment lawyers, do not hesitate to call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

  Category: Employment, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on What is the Department of Labor’s Final Rule on Joint Employer Status?
  Other posts by