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

Posts Tagged ‘Eastern District of Pennsylvania’

The Ban is Back – New Life Given to Philadelphia’s Salary History Ban

Posted on: February 10th, 2020

By: Courtney Mazzio

Back in 2017, Philadelphia was among the early adapters of the salary history ban that we see starting to trend nationwide. However, prior to the enactment of the Philadelphia wage equity ordinance, the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia initiated an action against the City of Philadelphia, challenging the constitutionality of the salary history ban law, arguing the portion of the law that prevents employers from inquiring about an applicant’s wage history violated an employer’s free speech rights. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania did block that inquiry rule, finding that the law as written violated the First Amendment free speech rights of Philadelphia employers.[1] However, the court upheld the reliance provision of the law, which makes it illegal to rely upon wage history to set the employee’s compensation.

On February 6, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision on the inquiry rule, and the wage equity ordinance will now prohibit Philadelphia employers from doing the following: (1) inquiring about a prospective employee’s wage history; (2) requiring disclosure of wage history; (3) conditioning employment or consideration for an interview on disclosure of wage history; (4) retaliating against a prospective employee for failing to comply with any wage history inquiry; and (5) relying on the wage history of a prospective employee in determining their wages unless they “knowingly and willingly” disclosed their wage history to the employer.[2]

The court reasoned that though new law does act to limit employers’ speech, it is “only because that limitation prevents the tentacles of any past wage discrimination from attaching to an employee’s subsequent salary.” Therefore, the court concluded that the goal of pay equity outweighed any limitations on free speech rights now placed on employers. Although this suit is not yet over and future legal challenges could ensue, we may start to see enforcement of this new law, so it is important for employers to think about revising their hiring practices to insure that potential employee interviews and applications do not impermissibly inquire into, or rely upon, prior compensation information. Moreover, employers should continue to remember that they may only use compensation information if the potential employee knowingly and willingly discloses the information, meaning, if the employer comes across the pay history information by another means, the employer cannot use the pay history information to inform its compensation decisions with regards to the potential employee.

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

[1] The Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia et al., No. 17-1548 (Apr. 30, 2018).
[2] The Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia et al., Nos. 18-2175 & 18-2176 (Feb. 6, 2020).

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Finds that School District Immunity does not Extend to Teacher’s Alleged Intentional Torts

Posted on: August 19th, 2019

By: Erin Lamb

An Eastern District of Pennsylvania judge ruled that the Philadelphia School District is immune from a lawsuit wherein a special education student was allegedly choked by his special education teacher. However, District Judge Gerald Pappert also ruled that the plaintiffs, the student and his mother, will still be able to seek punitive damages against the teacher over the allegations.

Plaintiffs allege that in March 2018, a special education teacher grabbed the fifth-grade student by his neck. The teacher was allegedly irate that the student had not put his pencil back in the right place. The Complaint alleges that the teacher choked the student and repeated pushed his head and body against the schoolroom wall, during class, and in front of other students.

The student’s mother sued and has alleged the use of excessive force against her son, deprivation of equal protection, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault and battery. She further alleged deliberate indifference by the School District to students’ rights to be free from excessive force because of an alleged failure to adequately train, supervise, or discipline its employees.

Judge Pappert ruled that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their failure to train claims, and that the school was immune from the intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery claims. Judge Pappert noted that the School District had a policy regarding excessive force that the teacher appeared to have disobeyed and rejected the argument that that immunity extended to the teacher. Plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to present a range of punitive damages claims against the teacher under both Section 1983, and the allegations of intentional tort.

Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend the Complaint to attempt “one last time” to allege facts to support her allegations of deliberate indifference against the School District,  but were not granted leave to amend any other claims against the School District.

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

Tucker v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., No. 19-889, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136591 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2019)