Sid Steinberg

May 09, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

Laws prohibiting prospective employers from asking applicants about their prior wage history have been part of a growing trend across the country.

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

March 16, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

Although we often plead or defend various state law claims ancillary to our more-usual employment discrimination actions, they rarely drive cases and we rarely have the opportunity to discuss such claims in this column. But the recent post-trial decision in Accurso v. Infra-Red Services, No. 13-7509 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2018) involves a wide variety of seldom-litigated claims.

By Sid Steinberg

7 minute read

February 16, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's recent decision in DiFiore v. CSL Behring, 879 F.3d 71 (3d Cir. 2018) is instructive, not just for FCA claims, but for a lengthy discussion of the causation standards under Title VII, the Age Discrimination Employment Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. The case also addresses the standard for successfully stating a claim of constructive discharge.

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

January 10, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

“He said, she said” is one of the clearest paths to trial for a plaintiff claiming workplace harassment or discrimination. This is particularly so when the statements in question are explosive. A clear example of this conundrum for employers was addressed in the recent decision of El v. Advance Stores, No. 17-2345, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211887 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2017).

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

November 08, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

With sexual harassment so much in the news, a recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reminds us of an employer's obligation when it becomes aware of harassing behavior from a co-worker.

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

October 11, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Neither the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) nor the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are so-called “job protection” statutes.

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

September 12, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Just as the adage is that "the coverup is worse than the crime," we know that in employment law, "the retaliation claim is more dangerous than the ­underlying ­discrimination." The latest example of this is in the recent decision of Austin v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., 2:16-CV-06509-TR (Aug. 30).

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

August 08, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

When the same individual hires an employee and shortly thereafter fires him, it makes intuitive sense that discrimination almost certainly did not motivate the termination. After all, why would an employer hire an employee in a protected category and then use the protected category as a factor in the subsequent termination? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, however, has consistently rejected what is often referred to as the "same hire, same fire" defense, as precluding a finding of discriminatory animus, finding it to be simply "evidence like any other ... ." The most recent test of this defense was in the case of McMullin v. Evangelical Services for the Aging, No. 2:16-cv-06660 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2).

By Sid Steinberg

10 minute read

July 13, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Over the years, a consistent theme of this column has been that employers need to hold all employees, regardless of protected characteristic, to the same standard in order to avoid even the appearance of discrimination. These are generally "employment words to live by." Realistically, however, managers often hold more senior employees to a higher standard than they do relative newcomers. While a number of courts recognize this ­reality, in the recent case of Larison v. FedEx Corporate Services, No. 16-5921 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2017), the manager's shifting explanation of her performance standards created a "genuine issue of fact," which defeated summary judgment.

By Sid Steinberg

11 minute read

June 06, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

When a Human Resources ­professional brings a discrimination claim, his former employer will be on high alert. But the recently decided case, Grdinich v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, No. 16-03070, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74892 (E.D. Pa. May 17) (Pappert, J.), raises the question of whether every discussion by an HR professional in the workplace rises to the level of ­"protected activity" under the anti-discrimination laws.

By Sid Steinberg

11 minute read