Category: Trial Lawyers

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers: Third Circuit Rules That Overtime Class Action Cannot Proceed In Arbitration

By ,

Recently, the Third Circuit weighed in on the issue of whether it is up to courts or arbitrators to decide if a class action lawsuit should be adjudicated in court, or in an arbitral forum. This case also dealt with the issue of whether an employment agreement that is silent on the issue of class arbitration permits employees to proceed on a class-wide basis on that basis. In Opalinski v. Robert Half International, the 3rd Circuit sided against the plaintiffs who wished to proceed on a class wide basis in arbitration. The case involved employees of the placement firm, Robert Half.

The plaintiffs were two former staffing managers at Robert Half in New Jersey. The men claim that they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime pay, and wrongfully denied such pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defense argued that when the men signed their employment contracts, they waived their right to resolve employment disputes in court. Their contracts provided that such disputes must be submitted to arbitration. However, their contracts were silent in regards to class wide arbitration. The two men brought an action on behalf of themselves and other putative class members who were denied overtime pay.

Shortly after filing the claim, a United States Dihttps://overtimestrict Court judge granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the employees’ individual claims. However, the district court determined that the arbitral forum had jurisdiction to decide whether class wide arbitration was permissible.  The arbitrator found that such claims could proceed on a class basis in arbitration – and when the defendant sought to overturn this ruling in district court, the trial court sided with the plaintiffs.  Subsequently, the defendant appealed this ruling and the 3rd Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the decision lies with the courts. The United States Supreme Court then declined to hear the case on appeal. After the case was remanded, the district court granted Robert Half’s motion to dismiss, finding that parties cannot be compelled to submit to class wide arbitration unless there is a contractual basis for concluding such.

The plaintiffs appealed this decision yet again, and the 3rd Circuit recently ruled against them, finding it had already “explicitly decided,” in a precedential opinion in this same case, that the question of arbitrability of class claims is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide.

Philadelphia Wage Dispute Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in All Types of Wage Dispute Cases

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, we routinely handle FLSA claims involving unpaid overtime. Our respected Philadelphia wage dispute lawyers are prepared to answer whatever questions you may have. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

 

 

 

Philadelphia Consumer Protection Lawyers Discuss the Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law

By ,

Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. (“UTPCPL”) is Pennsylvania’s consumer protection law. It seeks to prevent “[un]fair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce….” Id. § 201–3. Its aim is to protect the public from unfair or deceptive business practices.

The UTPCPL provides a private right of action for anyone who “suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property” because of an unlawful method, act or practice. See id. § 201–9.2(a). Upon a finding of liability, the court has the discretion to award “up to three times the actual damages sustained” and provide any additional relief the court deems proper. Id.  There are 20 enumerated practices which constitute actionable “unfair methods of competition” or “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Id. § 201–2(4)(i)–(xx). The UTPCPL also contains a catchall provision which refers to “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion of or misunderstanding.” Id. § 201–2(4)(xxi).

In order to establish a private right of action under the UTPCPL, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she detrimentally relied upon the deceptive practice of the defendant and that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of this reliance. Toy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 863 A.2d 1, 9 (Pa. Super. 2004).  It is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate the level of reliance that normally accompanies a common law fraud claim.  This means a plaintiff must show not just reliance on the misrepresentation, but also that the reliance was justifiable.  Id. at 11.

Philadelphia Consumer Protection Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Consumers in Claims for Fraud and Unfair Trade Practices

If you have been defrauded or subject to an unfair or deceptive business practice, you may have a valid claim under the UTPCPL, among other potential causes of action. Philadelphia consumer fraud lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will seek maximum compensation for your damages. To learn more about how we may be able to help you, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

 

 

 

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers Discuss the Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representative Act

By ,

The Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representative Act, 43 Pa. Stat. § 1471 et seq. (“PCSRA”) provides statutory remedies for certain sales representatives when they are not paid timely commissions. Under the PCSRA, a “principal shall pay a sales representative all commissions due at the time of termination within 14 days after termination” and “all commissions that become due after termination within 14 days of the date such commissions become due.” 43 Pa. Stat. §§ 1473–74. If a principal “willfully” violates these provisions, then the sales representative may bring a civil action to collect all unpaid commissions plus exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. Id. § 1475. The Act thus governs the payment of commissions owed by a “principal” to a “sales representative,” and a defendant can only be liable if the plaintiff is a “sales representative” as that term is used in the Act.

A key factor in determining whether you have a claim under the PCSRA is to understand how the law defines the terms “sales representative” and “principal”.

The PCSRA defines the term “sales representative” as follows:

“Sales representative.” A person who contracts with a principal to solicit wholesale orders from retailers rather than consumers and who is compensated, in whole or in part, by commission. The term does not include one who places orders or purchases for his own account for resale or one who is an employee of a principal.

Id. § 1471.

Thus, a “sales representative” is someone who solicits wholesale orders from “retailers” rather than “consumers.”

A “principal” is defined by the PCSRA as any person who does all of the following:

(1) Engages in the business of manufacturing, producing, importing or distributing a product for sale to customers who purchase such products for resale.

(2) Utilizes sales representatives to solicit orders for such product.

(3) Compensates sales representatives, in whole or in part, by commission.

Id.

Finally, a sales representative should be cautioned against bringing a meritless claim against a principal under the PCSRA.  If judgment is entered for the principal and the court determines that the action was brought frivolously, then the principal will be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. § 1475.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Sales Commissioned Representatives in Claims to Recover Unpaid Commissions

If you are owed unpaid commissions, you may have a valid claim under the Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representative Act, among other potential causes of action. Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will seek maximum compensation for your damages. To learn more about how we may be able to help you, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Foreign Arbitration

By ,

In a recent decision out of the Second Circuit, a U.S. Court of Appeals held that American courts can enforce an international arbitral award notwithstanding the fact that it was annulled by a court in a foreign country.

In Commisa v.Pemex, a Mexican subsidiary of a Texas corporation (Commisa) sued a state-owned Mexican oil company (Pemex), regarding several contracts to build infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, after a Mexican arbitral tribunal awarded the Texas company over $350 million. A Mexican court later set aside the award. Commisa then sought enforcement in the United States, and a New York district court judge held that the award should be enforced. The Second Circuit affirmed his ruling.

The Second Circuit noted that under the Panama Convention, American courts must enforce the award unless one of seven defenses enumerated in the Panama Convention is established. Although one of those seven defenses (a set aside) was satisfied, the judge ruled that he was constrained by the prudential concern of international comity—and that the Mexican decision violated international policy.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. frequently represent Businesses in Arbitration

If your business is involved in a commercial dispute that is subject to arbitration, the Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green may be able to help you. To learn more or schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Help Your Lawyer Win Your Case

By ,

How To Help Your Lawyer Win Your Case[1]

Summary:

The client is not just a passenger in a lawsuit. Instead, the client should be a combination of co-pilot and Air Traffic Control. Your lawyer needs your help.

  1. Write A Story About Your Case

You know what happened. Judges and juries will transform the evidence they hear at trial into a story. Therefore, you can get a head start by putting the facts together in the same way a novelist would write about the case. You can use chronological order and create a narrative that starts at the beginning. In some cases, the personalities and relationships of the parties and witnesses are more important. Whatever you select, write out everything you can think of. Eliminate all duplication to allow your lawyer to digest your story. Keep a copy and update your story as you learn or understand new things. Do not be afraid to throw out the story and start over if the mode you picked (e.g., chronological) turns out to be less effective than another (e.g., personal relationships). When you have your testimony taken, your story will help you keep the facts in perspective to the issues in the case. Also, your narrative will be a roadmap for your lawyer when he cross examines your adversaries and plans for the evidence needed for you to win.

  1. Do Not Be Afraid To Be Honest

Many people make the mistake of thinking that if their case does not have a perfect set of facts they cannot win. However, judges and juries know life is flawed like genuine leather and a case that looks perfect is treated like a cheap, plastic imitation of the truth. Your lawyer will be planning your case around what you tell him. If you do not tell him the truth, he will get stuck on a detour. Think of telling an ambulance driver directions on where it should pick up a sick loved one. You surely would be as accurate as possible; and your communications with your lawyer must be just as careful and accurate.

  1. Organize Your Emails And Papers

In modern trials, email and documents often dominate the case. Do not shirk the work of diligently searching all of your computers and phones for email and text messages; and similarly, locate every paper document. These things will be like bullets in your lawyer’s gun on the one hand, and will give him a plan of how to avoid traps.

Additional resources provided by the author

Gary Green

For more information, contact our Philadelphia business lawyers at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

[1] Copyright 2016  by Gary Green Esquire, Managing Partner of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C.,  Philadelphia Pa.

 

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 Business Lawyers: Elements of Defamation in Pennsylvania

By ,

Defamation is a tort that holds individuals liable for false statements, spoken or written, which harm the reputation of another.  In general, a defamation complaint must be sufficient to identify the accused defamer and outline the circumstances of the publication of the false statements.  The tort protects public figures as well as private individuals and is interpreted under state law.  The statute of limitations is one year for bringing an action for defamation.

In Pennsylvania, the elements of the tort are outlined in the Uniform Single Publication Act (USPA).  The burden is initially on the Plaintiff to prove each element: 1. The defamatory character of the communication, 2. Its publication by the Defendant, 3. Its application to the Plaintiff, 4. The recipient’s understanding of its defamatory meaning, 5. The recipient’s understanding of it as intended to be applied to the Plaintiff, 6. Special harm resulting to the Plaintiff from the publication (actual damages that are economic or pecuniary). 7. Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion (the publication was not reasonably necessary due to common interests).

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

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers: Proposed Civil Asset Forteiture Ban

By ,

Proposal to Ban Civil Asset Forfeiture to Come Before Pennsylvania State Senate Committee

In July of 2015, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a bill requiring prosecutors to convict an individual of a crime before the State could take his/her property permanently through civil forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture is used by police and prosecutors to take property from individuals suspected of a crime. Previously, this meant that the state could take property from an individual, even if that individual had never been convicted. Types of forfeitable property include cash, cars, homes, and other personal property.

Sentiment has been moving away from Pennsylvania’s use of civil forfeiture. In November of 2012, Judge Dan Pellegrini of Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court stated that Pennsylvania’s civil asset forfeiture law amounted to “little more than state-sanctioned theft.”

The Philadelphia Trial Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Individuals Suspected of a Crime

If you or a family member is suspected of a crime and need experienced legal representation the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help.  For more information contact us online, or call 215-574-0600.

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Report: Jury Awards Man for Unnecessary Skin Grafts

By ,

Plaintiff, Wismond Brissett, a 45-year-old truck driver, was cooking without wearing a shirt when the cooking grease caught fire. In Brissett v. Watts, Brissett was awarded $3 million for pain and suffering after Dr. David C. Watts failed to meet the standard of care. He performed a skin graft, which caused the plaintiff unnecessary pain and scarring.  He was brought to the hospital and was diagnosed as having first- and second-degree burns on eight percent of his body.

Brissett was referred to Watts and his practice, Plastic & Cosmetic Surgery Institute for the burns, after an initial meeting with his primary care doctor, where Watts diagnosed Brissett as having first-, second- and third-degree burns over 15 to 20% of his body and explained that Brissett needed surgery.

During the surgery, the burns were debrided, and then skin was taken from Brissett’s thigh and grafted to both his forearms and the right side of his chest. The skin graft left Brissett with severe scars and pain. Brissett’s wounds would have healed with only minor scarring if the surgery had not been performed.

Philadelphia Trial Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Victims of Unnecessary Skin Grafts

Philadelphia trial lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green offer a wide range of legal counseling to injured victims in Philadelphia. We are available to our clients 24 hours a day. No case is too big or too small. Our Philadelphia trial lawyers have diverse skills and decades of experience in varied legal services. Located in the heart of Center City, Philadelphia we serve clients throughout the Philadelphia area. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.