Filter This View

  • Weidenhammer v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd.

    Publication Date: 2020-06-01
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Education
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leavitt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0555

    Board correctly denied claimant's reinstatement petition, filed more than three years after she received her last payment, because the ruling in Protz v. Workers Compensation Appeal Bd., 161 A.3d 827 was not intended to have fully retroactive effect with regard to the statute of repose in §413(a) of the act. Affirmed.

  • Mallela v. Cogent Infotech Corp.

    Publication Date: 2020-06-01
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Ranjan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0556

    Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and trafficking act claims after plaintiff came to U.S. to work for defendant as a technology professional and court found plaintiff failed to allege physical injury or treatment by a doctor or psychologist for the emotional distress claims and his alleged facts did not amount to a plausible violation of the trafficking act. Motion granted.

  • Laidacker v. Berwick Offray, LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-05-25
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Columbia County
    Judge: Judge James
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0470

    Addressing an issue of first impression, the court of common pleas held that a prospective or current employee has a private cause of action to seek damages for violation of Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act.The court denied defendant's preliminary objection in part.

  • Washington Health Sys. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    Publication Date: 2020-05-25
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Health Care | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Leadbetter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0531

    Board properly held that employer failed to meet its burden of proof where claimant was fired for a positive drug test after telling employer she used over-the-counter CBD oil to manage her cancer-related symptoms because employer did not submit the results of the drug test as evidence and claimant's admission that she "failed" the drug test was hearsay based on what someone had told her. Affirmed.

  • Rosfeld v. Univ. of Pittsburgh

    Publication Date: 2020-05-25
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Education
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Ranjan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0530

    Defendant university moved to dismiss plaintiff university police officer's complaint alleging he was unconstitutionally forced out of his job in retaliation for arresting vice chancellor's son and court found plaintiff pled no facts to show he was exempt from being an "at will" employee or that he was tenured and entitled to any due process before his termination. Motion granted.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Montgomery County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Vasil v. Dep't of Military & Veterans Affairs

    Publication Date: 2020-05-18
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Health Care | Recruitment and Staffing
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0507

    Department moved for summary relief in plaintiff doctor'saction asserting department violated the Whistleblower Act and Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act by retaliating against him for complaints about substandard medical care in a veteran's facility and court found department took an adverse employment action by canceling contract and stripping doctor of his title and income as medical director but plaintiff conceded he could not show department interfered with his prospective employment at another facility. Motion

  • Havelka v. Retirement Bd. of Allegheny County

    Publication Date: 2020-05-04
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0461

    Appellant appealed board's calculation of her "average monthly compensation" for her retirement benefit arguing her lump-sum compensatory time payment ought to be included in the calculation and court held board did not err in determining §1712(a)(1) of the second class county code prohibited board from including the payment because appellant "received" the payment at the time it became available for her to use as time off from work and was logged before the averaging period. Affirmed.

  • A Special Touch v. Commonwealth

    Publication Date: 2020-05-04
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0460

    Commonwealth court erred in reversing Department of Labor and Industry's determination that nail salon personnel were not "customarily engaged" in an independently established business or trade for the purposes of subsection (4)(l)(2)(B) because "customarily engaged" required an individual actually be involved, as opposed to merely having the ability to be involved, in an independently established trade or business. Reversed.

  • Fisher v. Corr. Care, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-05-04
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0445

    While defendant demonstrated plaintiff's lack of due diligence in prosecuting this matter with reasonable promptness and the lack of any compelling reason for the delay, the company failed to show that it suffered any actual prejudice resulting from a substantial diminution of its ability to properly defend plaintiff's case. The court denied defendant's motion for a judgment of non pros.

  • Whited v. The New Caf at Greystone Gardens

    Publication Date: 2020-04-13
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
    Judge: District Judge Mannion
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0391

    Plaintiff server and defendants, restaurant and manager, moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and retaliation action over manager taking a percentage of plaintiff's tips and court found manager's participation in the tip pool was a violation of the FLSA and MWA but plaintiff's complaint to her coworker did not qualify as protected activity and her retaliation claim failed. Motions granted in part and denied in part.