Filter This View

  • 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.

  • Kohnen v. CSX Transp., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-04-13
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Transportation
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0304

    Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of an employer in this negligence case under the Federal Employees' Liability Act.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Connecticut Employment Law, Seventh Edition

    Authors: Pamela J. Moore

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Sardina-Garcia v. Brownsville Marine Prod., LLC

    Publication Date: 2020-03-30
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Construction | Recruitment and Staffing
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Pellegrini
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0349

    Trial court properly found appellant was a "borrowed servant" under the longshore and harbor workers' compensation act and dismissed his negligence action because defendant had control over appellant's work, appellant was performing solely defendant's work on a daily basis, the employment was over a significant length of time with appellant acquiescing to the working conditions and defendant furnished the place of employment. Affirmed.

  • Hernandez v. Pleasant Valley Assembly of God of Brodheadsville

    Publication Date: 2020-03-16
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Non-Profit
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0173

    Plaintiffs' allegations against the defendant employer for failure to supervise were insufficient where they were boilerplate in nature, and they did not sufficiently elaborate on plaintiffs' claims that employer failed to supervise two employees accused of slander. The court sustained defendants' preliminary objections in part.

  • Dudhi v. Temple Health Oaks Lung Center

    Publication Date: 2020-03-16
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pratter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0283

    Plaintiff's status as a permanent employee and a comparator's status as a temporary worker demonstrated a meaningful difference between their employment situations; therefore, plaintiff could not rely on this comparator evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as the two employees were not similarly situated. The court granted employer's motion for summary judgment.

  • Razak v. Uber Tech., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2020-03-16
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Transportation
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Greenaway
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0294

    District court erred in finding that plaintiffs were independent contractors in their putative class action against defendant Uber for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law because there were genuine issues of disputed material fact including defendant's exercise of control over drivers, drivers' opportunity for loss or profit and the permanence of the relationship. Reversed and remanded.

  • Belles v. Wilkes-Barre Area Sch. Dist.

    Publication Date: 2020-03-16
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry: Education
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
    Judge: District Judge Mehalchick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0282

    By resigning on the eve of a meeting with an accessibility company, plaintiff foreclosed the possibility that a factfinder could find that his employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his wheelchair such that plaintiff could perform the tasks required of him. The court granted employer's motion for summary judgment.