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.

Roofing Business

The rather convoluted facts involve the employment of Peter Accurso by Infra-Red Services (IRS) and Roofing Dynamics Group (RDG), both roofing services companies connected to Brian Land.  Accurso was responsible for soliciting business for both companies. In 2008, he was suspected of diverting business from RDG to friends and was directed to take a polygraph test as part of the investigation. Accurso took another polygraph in 2010. There was a dispute over whether the 2010 polygraph was mutually agreed upon or if Accurso was forced to take the test. Accurso claimed that he was fired because of the polygraph results. He also claimed that he was fired because Land wanted to divert Accurso’s business to his significant other.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]