Category: Uncategorized

Pa District Court Rules That Employer Who Paid Its Employees One-And-One-Half Times the Minimum Wage Rate Was Still Required to Pay Overtime Compensations

By ,

In Gonzalez v. Bustleton Service, Inc., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that an employer who paid its employees one-and-one-half times the minimum wage was still obligated to pay overtime compensation. 2010 WL 1813487 (E.D.Pa. 2010). Plaintiffs were landscape laborers who worked for a varying hourly rate. The “base” wage for each employee ranged from $8.00 – $13.50, but when the Plaintiffs were working on jobs for a government entity that set the applicable wage rate (“prevailing wage jobs”), they were paid nearly double their hourly rate. When Plaintiffs were working on normal jobs and receiving their “base” wage, they were all paid overtime wages in accordance with the FLSA, but Employer failed to pay them overtime when they were working on a prevailing wage job.

Employer argued that the overtime compensation should be based on the employees’ “base” wages, and when the employees were working on the prevailing wage jobs, they were paid above the necessary 150% of their base wage. Plaintiffs’ on the other hand argued that overtime is based on the weighted average of the rates the employee received during the workweek. For example, when an employee worked two different types of work, and received a different hourly rate for each, the overtime rate should be calculated on the average between the two hourly rates.

The Court agreed with Plaintiffs’ arguments and found that the Plaintiffs’ calculation was in accordance with the governing regulation by the Department of Labor. The Court refused to accept the employer’s calculation because, if accepted, this theory could allow employers to withhold overtime compensation if employees are paid one and one-half times the minimum wage.

If you have been denied overtime wages, the experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office Of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will fight to get you the compensation you deserve. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

  Category: Uncategorized
  Comments: Comments Off on Pa District Court Rules That Employer Who Paid Its Employees One-And-One-Half Times the Minimum Wage Rate Was Still Required to Pay Overtime Compensations
  Other posts by

Third Circuit Holds that Employee’s Anti-Vaccination Beliefs were not Religious

By ,

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently affirmed the opinion of the District Court that a medical center employee’s anti-vaccination beliefs were not religious in nature. The employee had been terminated for refusing to be vaccinated against the flu and claimed that his termination constituted religious discrimination. His case was dismissed by the District Court. The Court found that although his beliefs were sincere, they were not religious in nature and not protected by Title VII.  This determination was affirmed by the Third Circuit.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Under Title VII, it is unlawful to terminate an employee because of their religion as all adverse employment action based on a person’s religious affiliation is prohibited by the Act. Under the statute, religion encompasses belief, unless an employer can show that they are unable to reasonably accommodate their observance without undue hardship.

The legal standard, with respect to the employee’s personally held beliefs, is whether they addressed the fundamental questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters, and whether they are comprehensive in nature and accompanied by certain formal and external signs. When discussing his own beliefs, the employee in this case stated that one should not harm their own body, that he believed the flu vaccine did more harm than good, and that bowing to the medical center’s policy would violate his conscience as to what he believed was right and wrong. Because his beliefs did not meet the threshold set by the standard, the Court ultimately found that his beliefs were not religious. The Court noted that anti-vaccination beliefs could be part of a broader religious faith, in which case, refusal might be protected.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Victims of Religious Discrimination

If you suspect that you have suffered an adverse employment action because of your religious beliefs, the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. may be able help. To discuss your case, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our legal team handles all types of employment related litigation.

Court Rules that Accommodations for Indefinite Leave are Not Reasonable

By ,

An Appellate Court in Connecticut recently ruled that a reasonable accommodation for medical leave does not require employers to wait indefinitely for an employee’s medical condition to resolve itself. In the case of Thomson v. Department of Social Services, the plaintiff informed her employer that she would be taking a leave of absence from her work, but did not provide her employer with a time frame for her return. She also did not respond to her employer’s subsequent attempts to reach out to her in order to determine when she planned to return.

According to the Court, this employee essentially asked her employer to hold her position open for her indefinitely while she attempted to recover. The Court, relying on federal laws, found that this was not a reasonable accommodation request. The plaintiff, according to the Court, could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on these facts.

The employee informed her supervisor that she would be taking “over thirty days” leave depending on whether the lung condition resolved itself. And during a deposition, she confirmed that she did not know how long she was going to be out of work to recover from her health condition.

At the time she left her employment to take leave, the employee filled out a number of forms for her employer. The information she listed on these forms was incoherent and confusing. Her employer even reached out to her by certified mail for additional information, and did not receive a response. When the time came that she was required to submit further information and did not, her employer terminated her. The Court upheld the termination, because the accommodation that she requested was deemed unreasonable.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Employment Disputes

If you are in need of a Philadelphia employment lawyer, contact Sidkoff, Pincus & Green. To learn more about how our dedicated team of trial attorneys can help you, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Best-Interest Contract Provision from DOL Fiduciary Rule

By ,

The Best Interest Contract, sometimes referred to as BIC, is part of the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule. The Trump Administration has mandated a request for information to guide the Department of Labor (DOL) in its review of the rule to either change it, or eliminate it all together. Last week, in a lawsuit over the regulation, the DOL filed documents stating that it would be seeking an 18-month delay in the implementation of the remaining parts of the fiduciary rule. This 18-month waiting period will give federal agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), a chance to weigh in. 

What is the BIC provision? 

A BIC is a legally binding agreement that allows stockbrokers to earn variable compensation on products that they sell to retirement investors so long as they act in the investors’ best interests. The BIC provision allows investors to file class-action lawsuits over violations of this rule. Lobbyists want to have the rule modified or stricken.

The 18-month delay period will allow agencies, such as the SEC, plenty of time to undo the contract. Critics of the rule say that it is too complicated and that it raises liability costs. At this point, the only thing that is clear is that agencies will continue working on drafting the rule for at least a few years. The SEC has already put out a request for comment on fiduciary duty. The DOL’s request for information also indicates that lawmakers may add specific exemptions to the rule for the sale of certain retirement investment products, such as clean shares.

By delaying the rule’s finalization that the DOL wants to collaborate with the SEC, Finra, and state insurance regulators, it is a very difficult and complex issue. According to many commentators, there is no end in sight.  This can be extremely frustrating to those who work in compliance. It is impossible to advise clients how to comply with regulations when they are hanging in limbo.

Philadelphia FINRA Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Class Action Lawsuits

The Philadelphia FINRA lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. stay up to date on the latest changes in state and federal business law so that we can advise our clients with an eye to the future. Our trial lawyers represent clients in all types of FINRA lawsuits. To learn more about how we can help, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today.

Philadelphia Intellectual Property Lawyers Discuss Costco “Tiffany” Rings

By ,

Recently, Tiffany & Co., sued Costco for selling millions of dollars’ worth of knock-off Tiffany rings. Costco described the rings as “Tiffany” rings on their signs. Tiffany & Co. argued that this was misleading to customers and falsely suggested that the rings were actually designed and manufactured by the famous jewelry maker.

Tiffany & Co. was the first company to set rings in a claw to show more sparkle and light refraction. Prior to its innovation, diamonds were encased in a metal cup, reducing the luminosity of the stone. Now, all rings set in a claw setting are colloquially referred to as “Tiffany setting” rings.

Tiffany & Co. was successful in its suit and the Court barred Costco from using the word “Tiffany” to describe products not associated with the actual Tiffany jewelry brand, and ruled that Costco should pay Tiffany & Co. over $11 million plus interest, and nearly $9 million in punitive damages.

Costco has announced that it plans to appeal the decision, emphasizing that the rings were not stamped with the Tiffany & Co. name, but rather the name of the company that manufactured them. Further, Costco argues that the rings were accompanied by appraisals that did not say “Tiffany & Co.” The receipts also did not mention that the rings were Tiffany rings and the infringement was limited to the signage promoted by Costco to sell the rings in its retail outlets.

Philadelphia Trademark Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in All Types of Trademark Disputes and Intellectual Property Matters

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., we pride ourselves on providing clients with quality representation in various types of commercial and business matters. If you have questions about a trademark law issue, contact one of our Philadelphia trademark lawyers today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Workers’ Compensation and Illegal Immigrants

By ,

Under Pennsylvania law, illegal immigrants can apply for Workers’ Compensation if they are injured while working. See, Reinforced Earth Co. v. W.C.A.B. (Astudillo), 810 A.2d 99 (Pa. 2002). In Reinforced Earth, the plaintiff was a maintenance helper and assisted with cutting and welding iron and climbing scaffolds and ladders while lifting steel beams. Id. at 101.  While working, he was struck in the head, neck and back with a steel beam and diagnosed with a concussion, mild head injury and back strain and sprain. Id. Even though he was an illegal immigrant, the court held that he was allowed to receive Workers’ Compensation because the purpose of the law is to protect those who need protection, including those individuals here illegally. Id. at 105. Additionally, the court found that not allowing the plaintiff to receive Workers’ Compensation would reward companies for not inquiring as to a worker’s legal status before hiring. Id. at n. 8.

However, there is a limit to the compensation an injured illegal immigrant worker is allowed to receive. Mora v. W.C.A.B. (DDP Contracting Co., Inc, and Penn National Insurance), 845 A.2d 950, 952 (Commw. Pa. 2004). In Mora, the court held that when an illegal immigrant is able to go back to any type of work, his or her workers’ compensation can be suspended. Id. Mora went from working full-time and earning $800.00 a week to working only part-time and earning only $140.00 a week. Id. The court reasoned that there was a large price gap in the paychecks because the plaintiff was illegal, not because of injuries on the job, and therefore stopped workers’ compensation. Id.

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., our Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys handle many types of legal matters, including immigrant discrimination. To arrange a consultation with a knowledgeable employment lawyer in Philadelphia, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Pennsylvania Court Upholds PHRC Ruling in Favor of Employee Who Alleged Religious Discrimination and Retaliation After Complaining About Bible Quotes on Paychecks

By ,

In Brown Transport Corp. v. Com., Pennsylvania Human Relations Com’n, Brown petitioned the Court of Common Pleas to review an order of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (“PHRC”) that granted relief to a former employee, Stephen Soffer, who asserted claims of religious discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and failure to accommodate. 578 A.2d 555, 559 (Pa. Comm. 1990). This religious discrimination included bible verses on Soffer’s paycheck and religious articles printed in the company newspaper. Soffer complained about the checks and the articles to management, but they refused to either remove the bible verse stamps on the checks or remove the religious content from the company newspaper.. At one point a manager at Brown told the Soffer that he should be grateful to be getting a paycheck at all. Id. at 556. After complaining multiple times Soffer was fired despite stellar performance reviews.  Id. at 559. The PHRC ultimately found in favor of Soffer, noting his impeccable record two months prior to his termination.  Id. at 561.

Brown petitioned the Court to overrule the PHRC based on the following: 1) the PHRC should not have permitted Soffer to add a claim under Section 5(d) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. § 955(d), for retaliatory discharge; 2) that the PHRC’s findings of fact concerning Soffer’s allegations were unsupported by substantial evidence; 3) the PHRC erred in its application of law to the facts by concluding that Brown committed acts of retaliation and harassment against Soffer; and 4) Soffer was precluded by limitations in  in Section 959(f) of the PHRA, 43 P.S. § 959(f), from recovering any sums in the nature of either punitive or compensatory damages.

The Court ruled that Section 12(a) of the PHRA provides that provisions under the PHRA may be construed liberally, and the PHRC properly construed Soffer’s complaint to sufficiently allege discharge. Second, the Court found that Soffer provided sufficient evidence to support his allegations, and upheld the PHRC’s decision that Brown’s witnesses were non-credible as to why Soffer was fired. Third, the Court ruled that the PHRC’s findings were consistent with the evidence such that it did not err in its application of the law to the facts when ruling that Brown committed acts of retaliation and harassment against Soffer. Lastly, the Court relied on Consumer Motor Mart v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 529 A.2d 571 (Pa. Comm. 1987) to support the PHRC’s award of punitive and compensatory damages.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Employment Discrimination Matters

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., our Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys are knowledgeable in all matters related to employment discrimination. To schedule a consultation with a Philadelphia employment lawyer, call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online.

Philadelphia Sues Wells Fargo Over Predatory Lending Practices

By ,

On May 15, 2017, Philadelphia sued Wells Fargo for alleged predatory lending in violation of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The lawsuit comes two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that cities can sue banks that possibly could have targeted minorities with bad loans. The city’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. district Court in Philadelphia, says Wells Fargo purposefully pitched high-risk loans to black and Latino borrowers, though they were eligible to apply for better loans. The lawsuit says Wells Fargo was aware of this imbalance, and even encouraged employees to take advantage of it.

The claims are similar to those made by the city of Miami, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Miami could proceed with its lawsuits against banks for targeting minority customers. Like Philadelphia’s lawsuits, Miami alleged that banks unfairly targeted minority borrowers with bad loans. Then after the financial crisis, these customers, and even entire communities, saw unequal rates of foreclosure. Miami claimed that the discriminatory lending by Bank of America and Wells Fargo, caused undue financial harm on the city, increased segregation, and lowered property values. The Supreme Court’s decision was important because this is the first time a city representing entire communities has sued under the FHA. Miami’s case has returned to a federal appeals court in Atlanta, which will decide how much proof Miami needs to show in order to demonstrate the banks knowingly discriminated against communities. That decision, too will likely set precedent for other cities, as Los Angeles, Oakland, Baltimore, and Memphis have all filed similar lawsuits.

In its lawsuit, Philadelphia said an analysis found that more than 23 percent of loans to minority customers were high-risk or high-cost, while only 7.6 percent of white customers were given similar terms. Philadelphia has asked Wells Fargo to end these practices, and is seeking monetary damages from lost taxes, lowered property values, and compensation for increased segregation.

Philadelphia Commercial Lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Defend Against Predatory Lending Practices

Attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. represent those affected by predatory lending practices. To schedule a consultation with an experienced Philadelphia commercial lawyer, call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online. From our Center City Philadelphia office, we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Trademarks and the First Amendment

By ,

Recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled that trademarks are protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Many wonder what this means for holders of trademarks, or prospective trademark applicants. The United States government cannot reject a proposed trademark on grounds that the viewpoint it expresses is distasteful or offensive. According to the Supreme Court, this would amount to government censorship of free speech. No viewpoint can be discriminated against, according to the Court.

The Federal Government enacted the Lanham Act to encourage commerce and create a uniform standard. The relevant provision is the “disparagement clause,” which has heretofore barred trademarks that defame individuals, institutions, or beliefs.

The recent precedential case is known as Matal v. Tam. The facts underlying the case are as follows. The lead singer of a band known as “The Slants,” sought to trademark the band’s name, but his application was rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Office determined that the band’s name was derogatory toward Asians and offensive. As such, the USPTO determined that the band was not entitled to receive the government sanctioned benefit of trademark protection.  The Supreme Court disagreed and held that trademark registration cannot be denied by discriminating based on viewpoints.  While the government may discriminate based on viewpoint when it comes to its own speech, trademarks are private speech and the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited because the ideas themselves are offensive to some of their hearers.

Philadelphia Trademark Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Clients in Intellectual Property Litigation

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our legal team provides services to businesses and individuals in trademark disputes and other intellectual property matters. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, our Philadelphia trademark lawyers represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Tortious Interference as applied by Pennsylvania Courts

By ,

“One who intentionally and improperly interferes with the performance of a contract (except a contract to marry) between another and a third person by inducing or otherwise causing the third person not to perform the contract, is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the failure of the third person to perform the contract.” Adler, Barish, Daniels, Levin & Creskoff v. Epstein, 393 A.2d 1175 (Pa. 1978).

This duty of non-interference applies whether or not there is a contract with a third party See Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766, Comment (b) (1979)( “there is a general duty not to interfere intentionally with another’s reasonable business expectancies of trade with third persons, whether or not they are secured by contract…). This duty also applies to contracts that are terminable at will. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766, Comment (g) (1979).  “Under Pennsylvania law, to succeed on a claim for tortious interference with existing or prospective business relationships, a party must show:

(1) The existence of a contractual or prospective contractual or economic relationship between the plaintiff and a third party

(2) Purposeful action by the defendant, specifically intended to harm an existing relationship or intended to prevent a prospective relation from occurring

(3) The absence of privilege or justification on the part of the defendant

(4) Legal damage to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s conduct and

(5) For prospective contracts, a reasonable likelihood that the relationship would have occurred but for the defendant’s interference.”

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., our Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys handle many types of legal matters, including those involving tortious interference. To discuss your case with a Philadelphia business lawyer, call 215-574-0600 today or contact us online.