Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
590 results for '* topic:"Labor Law"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-04-03
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
Judge: District Judge Kane
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1:21-cv-00183
Defendant moved for summary judgment in employee's action asserting hostile work environment, sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and retaliation under title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and court found sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's PHRA claims, her title VII hostile environment sexual harassment and discrimination claims were untimely and plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of title VII retaliation. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2023-04-03
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Kelly
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 19-1468
Defendants moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's wrongful termination action and court found plaintiff failed to support his False Claims Act claim, his retaliation and gender discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and Equal Pay Act but did establish a prima facie showing for his Sarbanes-Oxley Act whistleblower retaliation claims and his ADEA and PHRA age discrimination claims. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2023-03-27
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Agriculture | Manufacturing | Transportation
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:22-cv-1164
Plaintiffs had alleged viable overtime compensation claims by pleading sufficient facts to demonstrate they were misclassified as independent contractors and that defendants had liability as a single employer/joint employers. Defendants' motion to dismiss denied.
Publication Date: 2023-03-20
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
Judge: District Judge Mariani
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 3:19-CV-00230
Defendant moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's gender discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment claims under title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act and court found plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to suggest pretext in defendant's allegedly non-discriminatory reason for firing her and presented a prima facie case of ADA and FMLA discrimination and retaliation but failed to show a hostile work environment. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2023-03-13
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Robreno
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1891
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's ERISA action based on defendants' alleged failure to provide unmarried decedent with a notice of benefit election rights and to inform her of the loss of accrued benefit due to death prior to electing an alternative form of benefit and court found the allegations failed to state a facially plausible claim for relief and defendants satisfied their duties to decedent as a plan participant. Motion granted.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: HON. ELIOT D. PRESCOTT, JULIE A. LAVOIE
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-03-06
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Education
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Dumas
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 998 C.D. 2021
University appealed the denial of summary judgment to it in employee's common law claims for his workplace exposure to asbestos and development of mesothelioma and court found an exception to exclusive jurisdiction under the Occupational Disease Act for claims asserted by an employee diagnosed with an occupational disease more than four years after the employee's last workplace exposure and employee could bring civil proceedings in an appropriate court of original jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2023-02-28
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Per Curiam
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-2172
Age discrimination claim was properly dismissed for lack of clear direct evidence of discrimination and failure to prove that plaintiff was replaced by a younger employee.
Publication Date: 2023-02-20
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Wojcik
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1431 C.D. 2021
Board erred in concluding the Impairment Rating Evaluation had no application in this case because the IRE provisions in §306(a.3) of act 111 did not apply to injuries that occurred before June 24, 1996 and court found claimant's IRE occurred after the enactment of act 111, it did not constitute a retroactive application of the law and employer was permitted to seek a modification based on the IRE. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2023-02-20
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Health Care
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Ceisler
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 70 C.D. 2022
Workers' Compensation Judge erred in shifting burden of proof onto workers' compensation claimant to prove that his disability was ongoing, and erred in terminating benefits when employer's medical expert could not give reliable opinion regarding claimant's recovery after refusing to accept the full extent of the work injury that was deemed admitted by employer's failure to answer the claim petition. Order of the WCAB reversed.
Publication Date: 2023-02-20
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-2057
Employees could not pursue a private cause of action under §662(d) of OSH Act following the completion of OSHA enforcement proceedings since there would be no authority for the Secretary of Labor to exercise after completion of proceedings. Order of the district court affirmed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read