We are employment law experts.  Whether you are an employer who needs consultation before hiring or firing, or an employee who needs to understand her rights against unlawful termination, we can help you navigate your way through the complex laws which have been enacted to prevent discrimination in the workplace.  Our attorneys regularly appear before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission (PHRC).  We have successfully prosecuted and defended claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, including discrimination claims based on race, color, religion, or national origin, sexual harassment claims, age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act,  Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and claims against New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD).   It is important to recognize that even where federal law does not apply to protect an employee, state and local laws may provide similar protections.

Under Title VII it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

An employee who has been subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature may have a claim for sexual harassment when such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination in the workplace based upon age.  To establish a prima facie age discrimination claim, an employee must show that (1) she is over forty, (2) is qualified for the position in question, (3) suffered from an adverse employment decision, and (4) that her replacement was sufficiently younger to permit a reasonable inference of age discrimination.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals who suffer a "disability." The statute defines "disability," in part, as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual."

The primary purpose of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is to balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families and to entitle employees to take reasonable leave for medical reasons.  Eligible employees are entitled to a total of twelve workweeks of leave during any twelve-month period if the employee has a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.  Following a qualified absence, the employee is entitled to be reinstated to the former position or an alternate one with equivalent pay, benefits and working conditions.  The FMLA also provides protection against discrimination based on the exercise of these rights, often referred to as the "discrimination" or "retaliation" provisions of the FMLA.

Restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements are the focus of tremendous amounts of litigation and a large body of law has developed on the enforceability of such agreements. These agreements typically provide that a departing employee is not allowed to compete with his former employer for a certain period of time in a particular geographic area. Courts have broad authority over whether to enforce a restrictive covenant or non-compete agreement; the fact that the parties may have agreed to such restrictions in a written document does not mean that a court will necessarily enforce those restrictions. Courts seek to enforce such provisions when they serve to protect a legitimate business interest of the former employer (for instance, to prevent the inevitable disclosure of trade secrets). In balancing the equities of the parties, courts often limit the term of the non-compete agreement, limit the geographic scope of the agreement, or decide that the former employer’s only recourse is a claim for damages rather than injunctive relief.

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to properly compensate employees for overtime work.  The statute provides for significant penalties when employers misclassify employees or fail to pay employees time and one-half the standard rate in any week where the employee works more than 40 hours.  Remedies include double the amount owed to the employees plus attorney’s fees. If you are an employer we can review your workforce and make certain that you are in compliance.  If you are an aggrieved employee we can bring a claim for you to recover all damages on a contingency basis.

Restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements are the focus of a tremendous amount of litigation and a large body of law has developed on the enforceability of such agreements.  These agreements typically provide that a departing employee is not allowed to compete with his former employer for a certain period of time in a particular geographic area.  Courts have broad authority over whether to enforce a restrictive covenant or non-compete agreement; the fact that the parties may have agreed to such restrictions in a written document does not mean that a court will necessarily enforce those restrictions.  Courts seek to enforce such provisions when they serve to protect a legitimate business interest of the former employer (for instance, to prevent the inevitable disclosure of trade secrets).  In balancing the equities of the parties, courts often limit the term of the non-compete agreement, limit the geographic scope of the agreement, or decide that the former employer’s only recourse is a claim for damages rather than injunctive relief.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (better known as ERISA) provides that if a participant or beneficiary believes that benefits promised to her under the terms of an employee benefit plan are not provided, she can bring suit seeking provision of those benefits. A participant or beneficiary can also bring suit generically to enforce her rights under the plan, or to clarify any of her rights to future benefits. There are specific rules, procedures, and standards that apply to ERISA claims that differ from simple wage payment or other breach of contract claims. ERISA claims are litigated in federal court and permit the participant or beneficiary who was denied benefits to recover her attorney’s fees and costs.

Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection Law governs wage claims in Pennsylvania. In the event it is determined that an employer has failed to pay an employee “wages” that due and owing, the employee is entitled to collect the unpaid wages, plus “liquidated damages” equal to 25% of the outstanding sums, plus attorney’s fees and costs.

Contact Us today about your case!