Pennsylvania

By The Numbers: Employment laws by total employees

September 12, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

With so many employment laws out there, it’s not easy to keep track of what those laws say — let alone under which of them your business may be covered.

Well, who loves ya! After the jump, it’s employment laws by the numbers — number of employees that is — that your business must employ to be covered under certain specific federal employment laws. (I’ll even throw in a few extra state statutes for my PA/NJ/DE readers).

GREAT BIG DISCLAIMER: What you’ll find after the jump are the numerosity requirements for various federal laws. There are a slew of other legal hoops through which your business may need to jump. Be smart. Discuss them with an attorney.

* * *

Philadelphia’s Mayor vetoes a proposed mandatory-sick-pay bill

June 30, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Yesterday afternoon, in a letter to City Council, Mayor Michael Nutter vetoed the “Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces” bill. This bill, discussed in a previous blog post, would have required businesses to provide paid sick leave to employees who work a minimum number of hours in Philadelphia County.

On June 16, City Council passed a watered-down version of the bill by a razor-thin 9-8 vote.

Here is a copy of the amended bill.

Legislation introduced to expand FMLA coverage in PA

June 29, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a federal law, entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take up to twelve workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in a 12-month period for:

the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;

the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;

to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition; and

a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job.

Last week, House Bill No. 1713, otherwise known as the Pennsylvania Family and Medical Leave Act, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Labor and Industry.

How might this bill impact Pennsylvania’s already FMLA-qualifying employers? Find out after jump.

* * *

Could the Beastie Boys collect overtime pay in Pennsylvania?

June 28, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5rRZdiu1UE

If Cochese and Bobby, “The Rookie” were working mall security in Pennsylvania, would their employer have to pay them for the time they spend keeping those uniforms looking 80s-spiffy? If it were up to one Pennsylvania federal court, they would be SOL.

You’ll see what I mean once you hit the jump…

* * *

A “social media specialist” gets fired for a Twitter gaffe at work

June 9, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Fueled by the remaining adrenaline from the Bruins 4-0 beating of the Canucks — 2 more wins… just 2 more — I am banging out this blog post just before the clock strikes 12. I have news of a new Twitter firing involving a “social media specialist” and an update on an NLRB action from May condoning the firing of a newspaper reporter for abusing Twitter.

All this, after the jump.

* * *

Is a non-compete agreement signed months after work begins enforceable?

June 1, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

I was reading a blog post from Jennifer L. Gokenbach at the Colorado Employer’s Law Blog, discussing how, as of yesterday, Colorado deems continuation of at-will employment to be sufficient consideration to support a non-competition agreement. In non-lawyer speak, that means that if an employee signs an agreement not-to-compete in Colorado after the employee starts working, on the condition that if the employee does not sign the agreement then the employee will be fired, the employer may later enforce that agreement.

That’s now the law in Colorado. Is that also the law in PA, NJ, and DE?

Delaware: Yes. Research & Trading Corp. v. Powell, 468 A.2d 1301, 1305 (Del.Ch.1983).

New Jersey: Yes. Hogan v. Bergen Brunswiq Corporation, 153 N.J.Super. 37, 378 A.2d 1164 (App.Div. 1977).

Pennsylvania: No. An agreement not to compete with a former employer must be supported by new consideration; i.e., a change in the conditions of employment (e.g., a raise, promotion, or other financial benefit). Maintenance Specialties, Inc. v. Gottus, 455 Pa. 327, 314 A.2d 279, 280 (Pa. 1974).

A new HELLA GOOD social-media-discovery ruling for employers

May 25, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Last week, I reported that a Pennsylvania state court had ruled that a plaintiff did not have to provide access to her Facebook page during discovery by accepting a “friend” request from defense counsel. That same week, another Pennsylvania state court was asked to resolve whether a plaintiff’s “privacy rights” would trump a defendant’s request to access the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts to discover facts relating to the plaintiff’s claim for damages.

Pennsylvania has become a hotbed of social-media-discovery litigation. Who knew?

I break down the latest decision, which I predict will be a “go-to” for defendants and courts alike, after the jump.

* * *

Before taking medical leave in Cancun, read this…

May 23, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Can a company create and enforce a policy that requires employees on paid sick leave to remain close to their homes, unless they obtain the company’s permission?

Would that policy infringe on an employee’s FMLA rights?

Good questions.

The answers are after the jump.

* * *

Court bars Facebook “friending” in discovery

May 18, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

If, in a pending civil action, the defendant requests to Facebook “friend” the plaintiff in order to learn more about the plaintiff’s claims, must the plaintiff accept the friend request?

This is precisely the issue that a PA Court of Common Pleas recently faced.

So, what happened? Find out after the jump.

* * *

Did you know? A prevailing defendant may recover e-discovery costs

May 17, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Earlier this month, a Pennsylvania federal court held that plaintiffs in a contractual-dispute matter must reimburse the defendants, who prevailed on summary judgment, for all costs that the defendants incurred in the production of e-discovery.

Now that’s a hammer!

More on this decision and how it might apply in an employee lawsuit against an employer, after the jump.

* * *