Jump To Navigation
Practice Areas

Employment and Labor Law Attorneys in Pennsylvania

For more than 30 years, the law firm of Markowitz & Richman has been confidently representing clients in a wide variety of cases. Our attorneys and staff are highly educated and skilled at pursuing cases to an effective and efficient resolution. We pride ourselves on offering knowledgeable, focused representation to clients in several legal areas.

Contact us to arrange a consultation at any of our five office locations: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Allentown, Pennsylvania, Haddonfield, New Jersey, or New York, New York.

Labor Law and Employment Law

Labor and employment law are areas of law that govern the way a company conducts business. These laws protect employees from wage and overtime abuses, unfair labor practices and preserve the rights of the working man and woman.

Labor Union Representation

Markowitz & Richman represents labor unions in a variety of matters. Our attorneys and staff are dedicated to the rights of workers to organize and work to preserve their future successes and minimize the negative impact any issues they may face.

Benefit Fund Representation

Benefit fund representation is a unique type of counsel that falls within the legal area of labor law. A benefit fund is an account designed to hold the money that pays for employees’ benefits, such as pensions and medical insurance. Markowitz & Richman is well versed and experienced in a variety of matters affecting benefit funds and the individuals who are legally obligated to protect the assets of the fund. We also represent recent retirees who are experiencing challenges with promised pension and retirement benefits.

Workers' Compensation

The workers’ compensation claim process begins as soon as you are injured. If you have been injured at work, report it to your employer or supervisor immediately. Do not be intimidated by your employer, insurance company or the process of applying for benefits. Our attorneys and staff are dedicated to ensuring that your employer adheres to all of the rules and regulations set by the government regarding workers’ compensation.

Discrimination

Have you been the victim of illegal discrimination in the workplace? If so, our lawyers can help. Markowitz & Richman assists clients in pursuing cases of on-the-job discrimination involving age, sexual orientation, religion, race and gender. Our experience with these types of cases allows us to efficiently and effectively pursue a beneficial result in your case.

Wrongful Termination

Have you recently been terminated from your job? Do you believe that there was an ulterior motive other than the one provided to you at the time of dismissal? Markowitz & Richman may be able to help.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is a very serious offense. This type of hassling and intimidation can create a hostile workplace, leading you to dread going to work every day. You may feel alone and without recourse. With the help of Markowitz & Richman, you are not alone, and you have options regarding the resolution of your situation.

Whistleblower/Retaliation

If you have been witness to illegal acts occurring in the workplace and choose to report, you may be legally protected from retaliation by your employer. We can help you to preserve your rights and correctly report injustices to the proper authorities.

Severance

In the event of a lay-off, an employer may offer some type of severance package in connection with the dismissals. This severance pay package should be fair to all employees losing their jobs. Many times, this pay insults the employee’s integrity and years of employment at the company. If you have been given a severance package, our lawyers can help you understand your right and obligations and may even negotiate with your employer for more equitable terms.

Wage and Hour Violations

There are a number of pay schemes that are illegal under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are knowledgeable in wage and hour laws and can tell you whether or not you have been treated unfairly. If your employer is guilty of violating minimum wage and overtime laws, courts can order your employer to pay not only the amount you are entitled to but also your attorney fees. Wage and hour law attorneys play an important role in upholding state and federal laws and compelling employers to treat their employees fairly.

Breach of Employment Contract

Most employment agreements have a provision that allows the employer or employee to terminate the contract "for cause." A breach of contract claim can arise when "cause" does not exist. Contact our office if you wish to prosecute or defend a breach of contract claim.

Non-compete Agreements

Overly restrictive non-compete agreements are a serious and growing problem and one that needs to be dealt with immediately. A non-compete agreement can hinder your career and prevent you from working in the field where your talents and experience are most valuable. Before you sign such an agreement, have one of our attorneys explains your rights and obligations.

FMLA

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is designed to allow you to take time off from work for medical reasons or to care for a sick or injured family member. If your employer has denied your FMLA leave, or if you think you have been treated unfairly by your employer because you took FMLA leave, we can help.

Personal Injury

In certain instances, our attorneys and staff may handle personal injury cases. If we cannot effectively serve your needs, we are more than happy to refer you to an attorney who can.

Contact our Philadelphia labor and employment lawyers to begin the process of resolving your case today.
Legal News & Case Summaries

News

Labor

Read More

Civil Rights

Read More

Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[06/25] Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.

[06/25] Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.
In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.

Read More

ERISA

[06/24] Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her employers and supervisors, claiming that she was terminated in violation of section 510 of ERISA and state common law after complaining to management about alleged ERISA violations, district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed as unsolicited internal complaints are not protected activities under the anti-retaliation provision of section 510 of ERISA.

[06/24] Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund
In an ERISA challenge to a union disability-benefits denial, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) a fund organized pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 186(c)(5) is conflicted within the meaning of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008); 2) the district court should have accorded the conflict in this case more weight; and 3) no rational trier of fact could have failed to conclude that the benefits denial was arbitrary and capricious.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[06/24] Bifulco v. Patient Bus. & Fin. Serv., Inc.
In plaintiff's wrongful termination suit against her former employer, Fifth District's reversal of trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as workers' compensation retaliation claims brought against the state under section 440.205 are not subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6)

[06/22] Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. v. Ogawa
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirming an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) grant of disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is granted in part where: 1) the mere fact that an expert witness talked with a party's lawyer and then altered his or her opinion language, though it might be considered relevant, did not require a factfinder to find that expert witness was other than credible; and 2) the ALJ's finding of the maximum medical improvement date was not supported by substantial evidence. However, the petition is denied in part where: 1) the ALJ's finding that petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating prejudice was supported by substantial evidence, and respondent's late notice was properly excused; and 2) respondent's stroke qualified as a compensable injury under the Longshore Act.

Read More

Civil Rights

[06/25] Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.

[06/25] Ruiz v. Cty. of Rockland
In an action against a county for national origin and race discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff was not qualified for his position based on evidence of plaintiff's misconduct; but 2) plaintiff failed to raise an inference of discrimination.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.