PA Law Blogs » Employment Law

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit against Staffing Company Settled

Admin2 — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:24:53 +0000

Employment laws in Pittsburgh are in place to make sure all workers’ legal rights and best interests are protected. When concerns arise about harassment – sexual or otherwise – it is the employer’s duty and responsibility to ensure that the situation is remedied and that the person committing the harassment is appropriately disciplined. In a recent case, Adecco USA, as part of its settlement, has agreed not to create or tolerate a sexually hostile work environment and to provide training and education programs for all employees.

Adecco, the temporary staffing company, will also pay $12,000 to settle the sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for a group of female employees working at Pittsburgh Plastics Manufacturing. According to a recent news report, Adecco did not take any measures against a supervisor at the company, even after the workers complained about the harassment.

Perpetrators of Pennsylvania sexual harassment, whether in the work place or elsewhere, tend to get away with their actions. This occurs mainly due to the victims’ fear of being retaliated against. Such victims in Pennsylvania should realize they are never without help during this stressful period. It is only fitting that the guilty parties be penalized for their criminal actions.

Child Labor Laws in Pennsylvania Relating to Summer Jobs

Admin2 — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:00:39 +0000

Summer time employment is something most young people look forward to – not only to get that coveted paycheck, but also to put something worthwhile on their resume and to get some valuable, much-needed work experience. However, it is important for those who employ young people under the age of 18 to follow the law and make sure that they provide a safe, healthy, positive environment for young employees.

Pennsylvania’s Child Labor Law protects the well-being and safety of minors employed in the state based on PA labor legislation. It restricts employment in certain establishments and also places limits on the hours of work, work surroundings and kinds of job duties that young people can perform. Based on a PR Newswire report, the law covers three distinct age groups: children under 14, children 14 and 15, and those who are 16 and 17. The law specifies the particular types of jobs those in each age group can or cannot do.

Of course, dangerous jobs in Pennsylvania such as welding, roofing, mining, railroad jobs and excavating work are off-limits to minors. Also, those working full or part-time must be paid at least the minimum wage, $7.25 per hour. Please remember that the federal child labor law is valid in Pennsylvania. Where state and federal laws coincide, the more severe of the two laws will take superiority over the law with more minor consequences.

Company Held Liable in Employee Discrimination Case

Admin2 — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 12:00:48 +0000

Novartis, a drug company, has been found guilty of discriminating against female workers. The company is said to have paid female employees lower wages than their male counterparts in addition to denying them promotions because of their gender.

According to an ABC News report, the decision, made by the U.S. District Court, required Novartis to pay $3.3 million in compensatory damages to 12 women who alleged that their employer treated them unfairly because they were women.

Some women said they were treated badly because they got pregnant. The court has not yet awarded punitive damages in this case. The remaining 5,600 female employees, who are part of the class action, can also file individual claims for damages. Novartis has been praised for being one of the “best employers” in the country. But one employee said she was fired when she was seven months pregnant because she took a few weeks off based on doctors’ advice.

Such cases demonstrate how evidence displaying a difference in pay based on gender can help support job discrimination litigation. In such cases, workers must be able to prove a pattern of unequal pay. Workers do have legal rights and if they believe they are being discriminated against or exploited, they should contact an experienced Pennsylvania employment discrimination lawyer to find out more information about how to pursue their rights.

Act 47 Hearing to be Held in Scranton

Envoca — Wed, 12 May 2010 10:00:45 +0000

The economy has presented several challenges to cities and operating businesses throughout Pennsylvania, and Scranton is no stranger to financial strain. An employee’s right to bargain over wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment with an employer, is something that most workers value within the structure that makes up collective bargaining. Even when money is tight, such negotiations should not be tossed aside.

Based on a CitizensVoice report, a hearing will be held shortly in Scranton, Pennsylvania by the House Labor Relations Committee regarding new legislation on maintaining the collective bargaining rights of municipal employees in relation to PA’s financial recovery program for struggling cities.

According to the report, Scranton is a city that falls under Act 47 as a “financially distressed” city. While officials are looking to help the city regain monetary balance, some are in favor of making sure that recovery plans do not initiate alterations to employee contracts that are not structured to lighten financial grief. As recovery plan issues relating to city police and firefighters currently make their way amidst state courts, the bill has received support from the Fraternal Order of Police and the Pennsylvania Professional Fire Fighters Association.

A Times-Tribune report mentions that Scranton’s Law Department as well as the DCED are involved in the city’s involvement with Act 47, also referred to as PA’s distressed-municipality law. At the time of the report’s release, it was noted that meetings regarding the creation of a new financial recovery plan for Scranton would not be closed off to the public.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Retaliation – How to Fight Back

Envoca — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:00:16 +0000

No one ever expects that they will be a witness to acts of fraud, especially illegal activity committed by an employer. Nevertheless, some may assert that an employee who discovers illegal activity in the workplace and fails to report such actions is just as culpable as the person committing the crime(s). It is unfortunate that a large number of employees allow fear and intimidation to hinder reporting fraudulent occurrences committed by employers or co-workers while on the job.

An employee who is the first to report such federal fraudulent activities to the government is referred to as a “whistleblower.” But what laws protect a whistleblower from being improperly fired and becoming a victim of whistleblower retaliation? These are important questions that one administrator who “blew the whistle” at illegal use of funds at a Philadelphia school has received the answers to.

According to a Philadelphia Inquirer article, the former female administrator found herself the victim of wrongful termination in Philadelphia as a whistleblower. The article mentions that the woman has not been able to get a job since being fired. Her whistleblower suit cites Pennsylvania’s whistleblower law and also alleges civil conspiracy, wrongful termination, and defamation. She had filed a complaint with federal investigators regarding “a pattern of criminal misuse of local, state, and federal funds.”

In order to apprehend and help curb fraudulent activity against the government, the False Claims Act was created in 1986, which also protects employees from whistleblower retaliation such as loss of salary, unjust termination, work suspension, harassment, threats, wrongful discrimination, and demotion. If any of these events take place, as they did in the Philadelphia administrator’s case, an employee (or former employee) may want to contact a Philadelphia wrongful termination attorney and file a Qui Tam suit against their employer to seek compensation and damages.

Skycaps Suit Against American Airlines Expanded to a National Class Action

Admin2 — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:00:59 +0000

A recent suit by nine individuals against American Airlines in Boston, Massachusetts has opened the gate to a much wider suit by some of the airline’s national employees. The suit was initiated by skycaps at Massachusetts airport locations who claimed losses of income after the airline initiated a $2 curbside baggage-handling fee.

Skycaps are employees of an airline who handle bags for customers in an airport. As a traditional customer service employee, the skycap is similar to a porter who handled luggage for train travelers. Skycaps receive a low hourly wage and rely on tips for most of their income.

An article on boston.com shows that a federal jury awarded the nine skycaps in the Massachusetts case a total of $325,000. The story adds that on Thursday, Feb. 4, a U.S. District court judge certified a class action suit that would extend the plaintiff base to hundreds of skycaps at 85 airports.

The skycap case, now gaining momentum, is a landmark case in that it seeks compensation for a class of employees whose income is dependent on various changeable factors. As tip earners, skycaps in Boston and around the country are members of a specific type of employee. The outcome of the case will involve whether the new policy of the airline was responsible for the loss of income for the individual plaintiffs and whether the airline had the right to institute the policy if it caused the loss of income.

This case promises to be an influential event in helping to build precedent for cases where employer interest conflicts with the interest of individual workers. Labor and employment lawyers may find that the outcome will show new guidelines for an employer’s responsibility for workers whose income is partially composed of gratuities rather than an hourly wage or a salary. In the meantime, the case may also have an impact on whether airlines continue to employ skycaps at all in a changing industry and a volatile economy.

SoCal Municipality Bars Public Work Solicitation, ACLU Responds

Admin2 — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:00:49 +0000

A class-action suit filed on behalf of day laborers in Southern California argues that municipalities don’t have the right to bar citizens from seeking work in public places.

News of the suit comes through an ACLU attorney, Belinda Escobosa Helzer, who spoke to the ABC News about pending litigation against the local government of Costa Mesa, CA.

Costa Mesa is a coastal Orange County suburb with a population of over 100,000, according to recent estimates. Advocates for workers say that Costa Mesa police recently conducted “sting operations” in 2009 where they posed as employers, arresting those who solicited jobs on the street. Reports in the Orange Coast Voice, a local blog, quoted Costa Mesa Chief of Police Christopher Shawkey as stating that police were enforcing a city ordinance prohibiting locals from “soliciting employment, commercial, or charitable transactions on public streets in a manner that distracts motorists and creates a potential safety hazard” or in private parking lots where the owners have posted notices banning solicitation.

Though the story did not include comment from Costa Mesa’s legal representation, it’s likely that the municipality’s five member City Council and other public officials will field questions about the alleged city operations as well as general policy that affects local job seekers. Labor and employment lawyers and advocates will be watching this case and others across the country to see how federal, state and local courts handle this kind of situation.

As the economy continues to struggle and US Bureau of Labor statistics show higher than usual rates of unemployment, Americans are seeking jobs wherever they can find them. Efforts to ban job-hunting anywhere are likely to meet with some controversy. This case and others like it could have a major effect on how local governments can set policy controlling public assembly and free speech and where local police departments can draw the line on disruptive behavior or other justifications for arresting individuals who are seeking work.

Ad Agencies Face Discrimination Complaints

Admin2 — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:00:15 +0000

A prominent employment and labor lawyer is working on taking the anti-discrimination fight to the advertising industry in a class action suit targeting big movers in this field.

Reports from Advertising Age reveal that Cyrus Mehri of the law firm Mehri and Skalet is filing charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against numerous ad industries including those associated with holding companies Interpublic Group of Cos., WPP, Publicis Groupe and Omnicom Group as part of a “Madison Avenue Project” where Mehri and the NAACP found evidence of “pervasive” racial discrimination in the ad world.

While the EEOC has to take time to investigate charges, the general effort seems to be moving forward, at least according to Mr. Mehri who told Advertising Age that “the wheels are moving” on a broad class action suit.

Mehri’s firm previously brought a class action suit against giant oil company Texaco in which audio-taped statements by executives contributed to a successful finding for the employees who claimed discrimination there. Mehri has also started other high profile class actions suits regarding discrimination by individual employers.

Some of those in the ad industry who are following the current effort claim that it will be harder to get a judgment against ad companies where labor policies are much less straightforward.

The Madison Avenue Project and its results illustrate how groups of workers can successfully take on their employers over job discrimination issues and how an entire industry can be affected.

In this case, it seems likely that the suit will drive some careful discussions over traditional policies and tendencies of advertising companies where changing demographics influence the way executives think. This case will also set precedent for employment and labor lawyers who want to help workers build a future case against an employer where the problem is bigger than one single person or one specific company.

U.S. Agency Sues J.P. Morgan Over Employee Discrimination Claims

Admin2 — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:31:44 +0000

A recent lawsuit is showing that even the nation’s largest financial firms are not above the law when it comes to labor and employment discrimination.

Reports from TV 10 WBNS in Central Ohio show that a mother of four who worked as mortgage consultant for J.P Morgan Chase is the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. EEOC that alleges women at the firm were the subjects of a hostile work environment.

Aimee Doneyhue, who was hired at J.P. Morgan while pregnant with her fourth child, says she was subjected to harassment, denied pay and then fired by email after speaking with the company’s human resources department.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found merit in Doneyhue’s case and has filed suit against J.P. Morgan Chase, the bank now famous for its 2008 acquisition of the ailing Bear Sterns financial firm. J.P. Morgan representatives have no comment, according to the report.

The case brought against J.P. Morgan, which is in the process of being expanded into a class action suit to involve other female employees, shows that even employers among our national institutions can be liable to claims of workplace discrimination. In comments to TV 10, Doneyhue said that was always the point of her effort.

Each successful employment discrimination case provides precedent for holding U.S. employers to a higher standard and making sure that each employee is valued in the workplace. The U.S. EEOC, which is tasked with aiding workers with grievances such as Doneyhue’s, provides extensive online assistance on their website for making sure employees have the resources they need to start building a workplace discrimination case in conjunction with professional labor and employment law attorneys. In taking on J.P. Morgan, the federal agency is proving that though banking institutions may be “too big to fail,” they are not too big to treat their workers fairly.

Workers Sue AAA Carolina Operations for Gender and Race Discrimination

Admin2 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:29:35 +0000

A lawsuit filed against AAA in the Carolinas shows allegations of employment gender and race discrimination in that company’s road emergency services division.

A Feb. 13 Associated Press report indicates that workers in AAA’s “Carolinas” region have filed suit claiming substantial pay gaps exist between black and white workers. The suit also alleges that some less qualified workers were promoted more quickly than others were. Other reports show complaints of the retaliation that is so often a part of employment discrimination cases. One employee claims that his car was burned after his complaints to human resources. Others claim that they were denied pay as a retaliatory practice by the company.

The attorney for workers involved in the suit says that many of them had applied to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeking approval in the form of a “right to sue” designation. The U.S. EEOC is in charge of overseeing enforcement of legislation around job discrimination. The EEOC web site includes information on how to file charges as well as guidance on a “timeline” for reporting discrimination on the job.

Cases like these illustrate how evidence of a “pay gap” between classes of workers can lead to job discrimination litigation if workers are able to prove a pattern of unequal pay. This will generally require information about personal wages and pay scales for a specific company.

In the AAA case, a double claim of discrimination of both gender and ethnicity was applied to a specific type of job. The story specifies that the suit pertains to AAA’s “car care and towing services” where discrimination may be more evident based on the unique nature of the employees who go out on the road to assist customers. Other types of job discrimination claims may apply to larger divisions or across an entire business. Other businesses can use the AAA case as an example of workers successfully suing under EEOC guidelines.