CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Pennsylvania’

Court Rules No Coverage For Pa. Law Firm’s Malpractice Suit

Posted on: November 26th, 2018

By: Barry Brownstein

An insurer does not have to cover a Pennsylvania law firm in a professional malpractice suit that a client filed after the firm allegedly used privileged information to benefit its attorneys’ side business in a real estate development.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Westport Insurance Corp.’s motion for summary judgment in its case against Hippo Fleming & Pertile Law Offices (“HFP”) and attorney Charles Wayne Hippo Jr., agreeing with the insurer that the dispute over a shopping center development was exempted from coverage by the outside businesses exclusion in the firm’s professional liability policy.

Gregory Morris and Morris Development, one of HFP’s longtime clients, alleged that HFP had used information disclosed to the firm under attorney-client privilege to benefit a project by its side businesses, Templar Development and Templar Elmerton. Westport’s insurance policy contained a clear and unambiguous exclusion for lawsuits stemming from any of the policyholders’ outside businesses, and Hippo had not disclosed his involvement in the Templar companies when applying for the policy.

HFP argued that since the underlying lawsuit’s first two allegations of legal malpractice and breach of contract stemmed from the firm’s attorney-client relationship to Morris, Westport had a duty to defend them under the professional liability policy. The court, however, said it was Hippo’s dual role that gave rise to the claims against him.

The court emphasized that the plain language of the complaint in the underlying suit entirely discredits defendants’ argument that counts I and II are based solely on HFP’s role as Morris’s attorney. Counts I and II of the complaint allege that Hippo committed legal malpractice and breach of contract by simultaneously acting as Morris’s attorney and a competing real-estate developer. Therefore, the court held that Westport has no duty to defend because each claim in the underlying suit falls unambiguously within the policy’s outside business exclusion.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Barry Brownstein at [email protected].

Arbitration Agreements in New Jersey Need More Details

Posted on: November 16th, 2018

By: Chris Curci

On November 13, 2018, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued an important decision holding that an arbitration agreement between the employer and employee was not enforceable. Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., Docket No. L-6238-17.  The arbitration agreement read:

Any and all claims or controversies arising out of or relating to [plaintiff’s] employment, the termination thereof, or otherwise arising between [plaintiff] and [defendant] shall, in lieu of a jury or other civil trial, be settled by final and binding arbitration. This agreement to arbitrate includes all claims whether arising in tort or contract and whether arising under statute or common law including, but not limited to, any claim of breach of contract, discrimination or harassment of any kind.

According to the Appellate Division, this agreement was unenforceable because it “failed to identify the general process for selecting an arbitration mechanism.” What exactly does that mean?

In its effort to clarify this standard, the Appellate Division stated that an employer is not required to “detail in the arbitration agreement the exact manner in which the arbitration” will proceed. However, an employer must identify the “forum” for the arbitration and clearly explain how the employee’s judicial rights to a jury trial are being replaced by the arbitration rights.

For example, the Court noted that it would be sufficient for an employer to (1) identify a forum such as the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) or the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”), and (2) adopt that forum’s rules and procedures. The Court opined that this would be sufficient because AAA and JAMS’s rules and procedures address numerous procedural issues, such as: (1) notification requirements, (2) how to initiate proceedings, (3) management conferences, (4) discovery, (5) the location of the hearings, (6) the number of arbitrators, (7) how to communicate with the arbitrator, (8) attendance requirements, (9) dispositive motions, (10) evidence, (11) modification of awards, (12) and applications for fees, expenses and costs.

In other words, while the arbitration agreement is not required to “detail the exact manner in which the arbitration will proceed,” an employer must specifically identify a forum such as AAA or JAMS and incorporate that forum’s rules and procedures. This allows the employee to fully understand how his or her judicial rights to a jury trial are being replaced by arbitration.

Employers should review their employee arbitration agreements to ensure their enforceability. If you need help with this or any other employment related question, Chris Curci practices Labor & Employment law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and is a member of Freeman Mathis & Gary’s Labor and Employment Law National Practice Section. He represents employers in litigation and advises clients on all aspects of employment law. He can be reached at [email protected].

Discrimination Suit Over Service Dog Revived By Third Circuit

Posted on: August 23rd, 2018

By: Barry Brownstein

The Third Circuit has revived a lawsuit by the parents of an epileptic girl who claim a Pennsylvania school discriminated against her by barring her service dog.

In 2014, Traci and Joseph Berardelli sued the Allied Services Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, which operates a school with a specialized program for dyslexic students, after it barred their daughter from bringing her service dog to school to help alert staff to her epileptic seizures. The school claimed the dog would be a distraction, and the Berardelli’s daughter missed many school days when her seizures were bad. When the school finally permitted the service dog to accompany her, the reprieve did not last long, as school officials required that it wear a “special therapeutic shirt designed to decrease allergens” that caused the dog to overheat. The parents’ lawsuit alleged that the school violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and a Pennsylvania discrimination law.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the ADA and state discrimination claims, ruling that they improperly sought damages.

On appeal, Traci and Joseph Berardelli argued that “reasonable modifications” required under the ADA are substantively the same as “reasonable accommodations” provided for in the Rehabilitation Act, and thus, service animal requirements in the ADA apply to both laws.

The Third Circuit ruled that the district court erred in its instructions to the jury about the Rehabilitation Act claim and improperly disallowed testimony about ADA service animal regulations because that was not the law being considered.  In its enforcement of the ADA, the Department of Justice has ruled that service animals are reasonably permitted to be used by disabled persons in public places as long as they are housebroken, not out of control, and pose no risk to the public.

The Third Circuit ruled that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its progeny the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 must be interpreted the same way with respect to reasonable accommodations that must be provided to those with disabilities, including the use of service animals. Thus, under the Rehabilitation Act just as under the ADA, a covered actor ordinarily must accommodate the use of service animals by individuals with disabilities. The Third Circuit also overturned dismissal of the claim made under Pennsylvania discrimination law, ruling that the district court erred because that law does permit damages as a remedy.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Barry Brownstein at [email protected].

Amendments To Pennsylvania’s CASPA Will Change The Landscape Of Payment Disputes

Posted on: August 3rd, 2018

By: Jonathan Romvary

Anyone who has ever done any amount of work as a contractor or who has represented them in collections cases has learned from hard experience that it can be all but impossible to get paid for one’s work. In Pennsylvania, the Contractor and Subcontractor Act (CASPA) was introduced in 1994 as a complement to the Pennsylvania Mechanic’s Lien Law and was intended to provide contractors (and subcontractors) with additional remedies against those owners/contractors withholding payment for their services. However, the landscape of these payment disputes is likely to significantly change as a result of recent legislation.

Last year, a Pennsylvania state representative introduced a bill, which sought to substantially amend the act and for the first time since 1994, provide further protections for contractors against those withholding funds for the work. That bill has languished in the House Commerce Committee since last year. Nonetheless, a similar bill amending CASPA was referred to the state senate and in June 2018, Governor Tom Wolf signed the bill into law as Act 27. Amongst the numerous amendments to CASPA, Act 27 now provides:

  • If an owner fails to adhere to the terms or withholds payment, contractors and subcontractors may stop performance of the work (subject to contractual limits);
  • There is no permissible waiver of any provision of CASPA;
  • Failure to provide the contractor with a 14 day written notice of a deficiency results in a waiver of the right to withhold payment for the deficiency and requires full payment of the invoice;
  • If a party alleges an invoice contains an error, that party must pay the correct amount on the date payment would otherwise be due otherwise it will be an improper withholding; and,
  • Withholding retention for longer than 30 days after final acceptance of the work generally qualifies as improper withholding.

These new changes are scheduled to take effect on October 10.

Without question, these changes increase the negotiation power of contractors and subcontractors, however, more importantly, the changes reinforce the need for owners and contractors to maintain clear payment records as only clear payment records will provide owners and contractors a sufficient defense in any payment dispute. Owners, contractors and subcontractors involved in payment disputes need to be aware of their respective obligations and rights.

Anyone in the construction industry that has questions about these amendments and how they may affect their business or current projects, please contact Jonathan Romvary at [email protected].

Coffee, Water, Less Than 20 Minutes

Posted on: June 19th, 2018

SCOTUS KICKS THE CAN ON SHORT BREAKS COMPENSATION

By: John McAvoy

On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to entertain the appeal of a Pennsylvania employer that could have resolved the emerging split of authority between the federal appellate courts and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) as to the compensability of employees’ short rest breaks.

In American Future Systems, Inc. d/b/a Progressive Business Publications v. R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, the Secretary of Labor filed suit against Progressive Business Publications, a company that publishes and distributes business publications and sells them through its sales representatives, as well as the company’s owner, alleging they violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by paying their salespeople an hourly wage and bonuses based on their number of sales per hour while they were logged onto the computer at their workstations, and by not paying them if they were logged off for more than 90 seconds.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania previously found that the employer’s policy had violated the FLSA, relying on a DOL regulation which states that “[r]est periods of short duration, running from 5 minutes to about 20 minutes, are common in industry.  They promote the efficiency of the employee and are customarily paid for as working time.  They must be counted as hours worked.”  In so holding, the District Court found that the employer was liable for at least $1.75 million in back wages and damages.

On appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the employer argued that that it provided “flex time” rather than “breaks,” which allowed workers to clock out whenever they wanted, for any reason.  In other words, that the employees were not “working” after they logged off of their computers since they could do anything they wanted, including leaving the office.  The appellate court rejected this argument, reasoning that to dock the pay of employees who can’t manage a bathroom sprint is “absolutely contrary to the FLSA,” and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The Third Circuit’s reliance on DOL regulation was contrary to the holdings of some of the other circuit courts which opted to assess the circumstances of the break in lieu of interpreting the DOL regulation as a bright-line rule that fails to take into consideration the facts of a particular situation.

The employer asked the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify how compensability for breaks should be determined.  Citing the circuit split, the employer posited that the question of break pay should be determined by assessing the circumstances of the break, rather than adopting the DOL regulation as a bright-line rule.  In its reply brief, the DOL fervently defended its regulations and denied the existence of the alleged circuit split, arguing that “hours worked [are] not limited to the time an employee actually performs his or her job duties.”  Unfortunately, this remains an issue for another day as the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and/or resolve the alleged split.

Absent a decision from the Supreme Court to the contrary, employers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware are bound by the Third Circuit’s decision. As such, employers in these states must continue to comply with DOL regulations with respect to the compensability of short breaks.

Fortunately, the applicable DOL regulations are designed to protect employers’ rights. For starters, the regulations recognize that meal periods serve a different purpose than coffee or snack breaks and, as such, are not compensable.  Second, an employer need not count an employee’s unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer’s rules, and any extension of the break will be punished.

Although an employer will have to compensate an employee who repeatedly takes unauthorized breaks lasting less than 20 minutes in order to comply with the Third Circuit’s ruling and the applicable DOL regulations, the employer is nevertheless free to discipline the employee for such indiscretions by whatever means the employer deems appropriate, including termination.

Prudent employers should prepare themselves to address such issues through smart planning and proper training of employees, including managers, supervisors and HR personnel to ensure the employer’s break, discipline, and termination policies and procedures comply with all applicable DOL regulations.

Want to know whether your company’s break, discipline, and termination policies and procedures comply with DOL regulations? Let me help. Please call or email me (215.789.4919; [email protected]).