Philadelphia Employment Law Attorneys

Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/16] Fitzsimons v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group
In a suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) brought by a physician against a medical group of which she was a partner, alleging unlawful retaliation for opposing sexual harassment of an employee, the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed, where: 1) the harassment of the defendant's employees, if proven, was an unlawful practice for which the defendant would be liable; 2) FEHA made it an unlawful practice for the defendant to retaliate against any "person" for opposing that harassment; and 3) "person" includes a partner.

[05/16] People ex rel. Harris v. Sunset Car Wash, LLC
In a state action against a car wash, seeking to recover unpaid wages and penalties owed by a company that had operated a car wash at the same location before being evicted by the property owner, judgment in favor of the People is affirmed, where: 1) successor liability applied under Labor Code section 2066, as the plain meaning of "successor" is any entity defined in the four clauses of section 2066; 2) reliance on external definitions of "successor" would defeat the purpose of section 2066; and 3) section 2066 provides the necessary notice of the potential for successor liability for labor law violations, and so does not violate due process.

Read More

ERISA

[05/17] Fleisher v. Standard Insurance Co.
In a case in which a long-term disability (LTD) insurance provider reduced a dentist's monthly benefits by the amount of the monthly benefits he received under a separate LTD insurance policy, the district court's dismissal of the dentist's ERISA claim is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review of the plan administrator's decision applied; 2) the plan administrator reasonably determined that the other policy fell within the meaning of "another group insurance coverage" and so amounts paid under it could reduce the amount the defendant insurer owed.

[05/03] HOP Energy, L.L.C. v. Local 553 Pension Fund
In a case in which a company sought an exemption from withdrawal liability under the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act because it had sold the operating division that was required to make contributions to a pension fund, the district court's affirmance of an arbitrator's finding that the plaintiff was not exempt is affirmed, where: 1) the proper standard of review was de novo; 2) the "contribution base unit" was hours of employee pay, but while under the asset purchase agreement (APA) the purchaser had an obligation to contribute to the fund at the same rate, it had no obligation to maintain substantially the same number of "hours of pay"; and 3) the arbitrator did not err by excluding extrinsic evidence about the plaintiff's intent when entering the APA.

[04/20] Dickens v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.
In an employee's ERISA suit arising out of the termination of long-term disability benefits under his employer-sponsored plan, an appeal by the claims administrator of an interlocutory order remanding the matter to it is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, where: 1) a district court order remanding to an ERISA claims administrator for reconsideration does not constitute a final decision; and 2) the collateral order doctrine did not apply.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[05/18] Crowther v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
In consolidated negligence actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) against two railroad defendants brought by a former employee, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) no fact-finder could reasonably have inferred that the plaintiff first became aware of a work connection with his knee pain and neck injury within the period of limitation; 2) there was no error in entering judgment as a matter of law on negligence claims based on inadequate tools and failure to obtain ergonomic studies of the activities required to perform the plaintiff's various jobs; and 3) it was not reversible error to admit collateral source evidence that the plaintiff was receiving disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

[05/15] Harman Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL
In a case in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that a man suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarded his widow black lung benefits payable by his former employer, a petition for review is denied, where the award of benefits found support in the record and accorded with the Administrative Procedure Act, as the ALJ properly evaluated the appropriate weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.

[05/15] DMS Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (Zurich Services Corp.)
In a suit by a provider of commercial janitorial services against the third-party administrator for its workers' compensation insurance claims, a petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate the trial court's order compelling arbitration is granted, where: 1) none of the plaintiffs' agreements with their administrator contained an arbitration clause; and 2) the trial court erred in compelling arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, because the plaintiffs' claims against the administrator were not founded in, or inextricably intertwined with, the deductible agreement with the insurer, which contained the arbitration clause.

Read More

Civil Rights

[05/17] Ridley School District v. M.R.
In a suit by parents of a learning-disabled child, seeking compensatory education from a school district for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and tuition reimbursement, including transportation expenses, for the child's enrollment in an alternative school, the district court's judgment in favor of the school district is affirmed, where: 1) the school district complied with its "child find" obligations under the IDEA, and the child was not denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE); 2) the child's individualized education program was adequate to provide a FAPE; and 3) there was no section 504 violation, as the school district took reasonable steps to accommodate the child's disabilities and include her in all class activities.

[05/17] JSJ Limited Partnership v. Mehrban
In a suit by a restaurant for abuse of process and malicious prosecution against a patron who had sued it for ADA violations, the trial court's denial of an anti-SLAPP motion to strike is reversed, where: 1) the ADA complaint arose from protected activity and was a proper subject of a motion made pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute; and 2) the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a likelihood it would prevail on the merits of its claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, since a) the litigation privilege foreclosed the pursuit of the abuse of process cause of action, and b) the restaurant's successful invocation of the defense of res judicata in the underlying ADA claim, which resulted in a voluntary dismissal, was not a favorable determination on the merits necessary for a malicious prosecution action.

[05/16] Johnson v. Killian
In a suit asserting Bivens claims for violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) against prison officials for a policy that restricted Muslim inmates' ability to perform regular congregational prayers, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is vacated, where an earlier grievance filed by the plaintiff was sufficient to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to continuing limitations on congregational prayer at the prison.

Read More