Sid Steinberg

April 07, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held in , No. 14-2402, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44069 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2015), that a former employee cannot meet his or her burden of showing a prima facie case of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the alleged "adverse employment actions" were isolated and not severe and pervasive enough to alter the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of his or her employment.

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

March 11, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In addressing a matter of first impression in this circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held in Speed v. WES Health System, No. 14-0286, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23818 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2015), that an employee does not "forfeit her retaliation rights under [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] for physically defending herself against a sexual advance after an employer fails to take corrective measures about a hostile work environment."

By Sid Steinberg

5 minute read

March 11, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In addressing a matter of first impression in this circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held in , No. 14-0286, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23818 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2015), that an employee does not "forfeit her retaliation rights under [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] for physically defending herself against a sexual advance after an employer fails to take corrective measures about a hostile work environment."

By Sid Steinberg

5 minute read

February 11, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

When analyzing whether an employee has plausibly stated a claim under federal and state anti-retaliation laws, it is not enough to look at the actions of the employee and the employer individually, but rather, courts will analyze the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the parties' actions. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania provided a recent example of this principle in Leblanc v. Hill School, No. 14-1674, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2981 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2015).

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

February 10, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

When analyzing whether an employee has plausibly stated a claim under federal and state anti-retaliation laws, it is not enough to look at the actions of the employee and the employer individually, but rather, courts will analyze the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the parties' actions. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania provided a recent example of this principle in , No. 14-1674, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2981 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2015).

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

January 14, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Even in a tight job market, employees resign regularly based on real or perceived problems at work. When they resign and then sue, they have an added degree of difficulty in establishing that they were "constructively discharged"—that is, that the conditions under which they were working were "so intolerable that a reasonable person would have had no choice but to resign." The flip side to this standard is the well-settled law that employees are not being encouraged to resolve workplace situations with "the simple expedient of quitting." The most recent case where this standard was discussed and applied by a court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was Heppard v. EDSI Solutions, No. 13-6124, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175989 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2014).

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

January 13, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Even in a tight job market, employees resign regularly based on real or perceived problems at work. When they resign and then sue, they have an added degree of difficulty in establishing that they were "constructively discharged"—that is, that the conditions under which they were working were "so intolerable that a reasonable person would have had no choice but to resign." The flip side to this standard is the well-settled law that employees are not being encouraged to resolve workplace situations with "the simple expedient of quitting." The most recent case where this standard was discussed and applied by a court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was , No. 13-6124, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175989 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2014).

By Sid Steinberg

6 minute read

November 12, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

How "severe" an offensive workplace must be to rise to the level of actionable harassment is an ongoing balancing act by courts in the Third Circuit. While the language courts use is well-known, and comes from U.S. Supreme Court cases, the application of that language is often the subject of nuanced interpretation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's recent decision in Greer v. Mondelez Global, No. 12-3820, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20529 (3d Cir. Oct. 22, 2014), is the latest case to keep the "severity" bar at a high level for individuals claiming that they have been harassed in the workplace.

By Sid Steinberg

5 minute read

October 08, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

Sometimes an employer just reaches a breaking point with an employee and the combination of marginal performance, disruptive behavior and being an overall strain on resources leads to termination. A striking example of this explanation as a legitimate basis to end an individual's employment is the recent case of DiFrancesco v. A-G Administrators, No. 13-4284, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124263 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 4, 2014) (Quinones Alejandro, J.).

By Sid Steinberg

5 minute read

September 10, 2014 | The Legal Intelligencer

Usually, an employee who tells a co-worker that his boss is an "asshole" can expect to be collecting unemployment compensation benefits shortly thereafter. But, depending upon the context and the medium, such a comment, even made by a non-union employee, may be "protected concerted activity," and therefore entitled to legal protection, after the National Labor Relations Board's recent decision in Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31 (Aug. 22, 2014).

By Sid Steinberg

7 minute read