Category: Wrongful Termination

Pennsylvania Employee Terminated for Legitimate Reasons Despite Claims of Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation

By ,

SPG

On February 13, 2018, a jury found in favor of a defendant employer against a plaintiff alleging hostile work environment and retaliation. In Johnson v. Keystone Quality Transp. Co., Johnson, a former employee of Keystone working as a paratransit van driver, alleged hostile work environment and retaliation after she was terminated. No. 2:16-cv-06603-GJP. Johnson alleged claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. §§ 951, et. seq. (“PHRA”).

According to the Complaint, while working at Keystone, Johnson’s supervisor began sexually harassing and assaulting her, including sending inappropriate pictures of himself and groping her more than once. Once Johnson reported the harassment, the supervisor was terminated by Keystone for his actions. However, about a week later, Plaintiff was suspended and ultimately fired. In her suit, Johnson alleged she was terminated in retaliation for reporting the harassment.

Keystone successfully rebutted Johnson’s claims by proving that Johnson’s suspension was a result of taking the wrong vehicle and preventing the use of another vehicle as she had the set of car keys on her. Keystone argued that after the suspension was over, Johnson was not terminated, but rather she abandoned her job, as she failed to come back to work. Weighing the facts of the case, a jury determined there was no sexual harassment or retaliation by Keystone against Johnson.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

Court Ruling on Employee Abuse of FMLA Leave

By ,

SPG

Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employer’s honest belief that an employee misused their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was sufficient to defeat the employee’s claim for retaliation. This holds true even if it turns out that the employer was mistaken, and that the employee was not misusing their rights under the FMLA. Pennsylvania is within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Capps v. Mondelez Global, LLC, the employer, Mondelez, had an FMLA policy in place. The policy made clear that any employee who fraudulently misused FMLA time would be subject to discipline and possible termination. The company also had an additional policy that provided discipline if an employee was found to have engaged in dishonest acts. One of Mondelez’s employees, Frederick Capps, was experiencing bouts of severe pain following a bilateral hip replacement that he underwent in 2003. Mondelez provided him with intermittent leave under the FMLA during these bouts of pain.

One day in 2013, Capps took the day off alleging it was for pain related to his medical condition. Later that evening, he went to a bar and was arrested for a DWI while driving home. Although he was scheduled to work the next day, he called out complaining of pain related to his hip surgery. Capps’s employer learned of his arrest in the newspaper, and discovered that he fraudulently requested FMLA for the day after his arrest and on subsequent court dates; the absences were not related to his medical condition. As a result, his employment was terminated.

Termination Retaliation

Mr. Capps sued his employer for allegedly retaliating against him for taking FMLA leave. The District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of Mondelez Global, LLC on grounds that it acted on an honest belief that Capps had been abusing FMLA leave. Although the Court ultimately found that he had not established a prima facie case of retaliation, it noted that Mondelez had established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Capps, stating that he violated the company’s Dishonestly Policy. Because the employer acted in good faith, the Court ruled in its favor, concluding that even if the employer’s belief turned out to be untrue, it still would have prevailed because it had established that it acted in good faith.

This is consistent with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ rulings in other discrimination claims, such as age-discrimination and Title VII cases, whereby an employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination will not be defeated by a plaintiff demonstrating that the belief was ultimately incorrect.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Represent Clients in Employment and Business Matters

The statutes, regulations, and case law that govern the employer-employee relationship are constantly evolving. If you have questions about a legal situation, contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. today to schedule a confidential consultation. We can be reached at 215-574-0600 or by submitting a convenient online contact form.

Wrongful Termination In Violation Of Public Policy Needs Particularity

By ,

SPG

In Spyridakis v. Riesling Group, Inc., 2009 WL 3209478 (E.D. Pa. 2009), the plaintiff-employee brought a claim for wrongful termination on the basis of defendant-employer’s alleged violations of public policy, specifically the right to free speech and to petition government under the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions. Additionally, Spyridakis claimed that federal and state labor, employment, and tax laws were also violated. Spyridakis alleged that Riesling Group terminated her for “inquiring with the Bureau about whether defendant properly treated her employment as that of an independent contractor” and the defendant evaded federal and state laws by “classifying workers as independent contractors, but treating them as employees.”

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Spyridakis’ wrongful termination claim because of her failure to identify a particular statute, or other source of public policy, that proscribes such conduct. The court explained that under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff, under these circumstances, must point to specific violations of federal or state law to the extent they embody public policy, and show that they have been violated. The court further explained that Pennsylvania law limits claims of constitutional violations of public policy to incidents involving state actors (and here, the employer was not a state actor).

For more information, call our employment lawyers in Philadelphia 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.