Post & Schell, P.C.


Summary Judgment Granted Despite Employer's Questionable 'Methodology' >
October 8, 2019
The Legal Intelligencer
By: Sidney R. Steinberg
It is an axiom of employment law that an employer's decision to terminate an employee does not need to be "right," but only needs to be based upon its reasonable and nondiscriminatory belief that the employee's behavior warrants discipline. This was most recently illustrated in the case of Beishl v. County of Bucks, where the court granted summary judgment to the employer while questioning the "methodology" of its analysis.

It Ain't Your Father's Arbitration Act Anymore … or Perhaps It Is >
August 21, 2019
The Legal Intelligencer's Construction Law Supplement
By: Kenneth W. Lee
Since 1982, the Pennsylvania Uniform Arbitration Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Sections 7301-7320 (Subchapter A), Sections 7341- 7342 (Subchapter B) (UAA), has remained unchanged. However, as of July 1, the Pennsylvania Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 7321.1-7321.31 (Subchapter A.1), §§7341-7342 (Subchapter B.1 or Section 2 depending on the version) (RUAA), became effective. While, upon closer examination, the RUAA may not be an Armageddon to the construction industry's traditional notion of “common-law” arbitration, the RUAA does lay a trap for the unwary if common-law arbitration as traditionally perceived is the mechanism desired for dispute resolution.

Third Circuit Provides Practical Guidance on Common Workplace Issues >
August 14, 2019
By: Sidney R. Steinberg
Two recent published decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provide continued guidance to employers and their counsel on issues that frequently arise in the workplace.

Potential Impact of 'Avandia' on Bad Faith Litigation in Pennsylvania >
August 6, 2019
The Legal Intelligencer's Insurance Law Supplement
By: Bryan M. Shay and Madison G. Melinek
n its recent decision in In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit further clarified the standards governing the protection and management of a party's confidential and proprietary information that is filed with the court or offered as evidence at trial. In that case, the Third Circuit concluded that a party seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents and information that are filed with the court - such as in an exhibit to a motion for summary judgment - or used at trial must demonstrate that the common law right of access and the First Amendment are not offended by maintaining the confidentiality of such documents at that stage in the litigation.

New EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting Requirements: What Employers Need to Know >
July 29, 2019
The Legal Intelligencer
By: Andrea M. Kirshenbaum and David E. Renner
As many employers may know, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), following the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's March 4, decision in National Women's Law Center v. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has announced that covered employers must submit employees' W-2 pay and hours worked data (which the EEOC has referred to as a Component 2 EEO-1) for years 2017 and 2018 by Sept. 30. Employers that are required to submit Component 2 data should be actively working toward meeting this impending deadline.

Employer Not Required to Provide ADA Accommodation of Choice to Employee >
July 10, 2019
The Legal Intelligencer
By: Sidney R. Steinberg
While the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that an employer provide a disabled employee a “reasonable accommodation,” it is important to keep in mind that an accommodation need only be “reasonable” and need not be the one preferred by the employee in question. This is the principal message of the recent decision in Keyhani v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.

Recent NLRB Decision Reminds Employers of the Need for Consistency >
June 12, 2019
The Legal Intelligencer
Employers must be both credible and consistent in their explanation for employment decisions. One without the other is helpful, but both are necessary for an employer to prevail. While we see this issue raised most often in the context of summary judgment or trial decisions in court, a recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board reinforces the point.

The Yates Memo Is Here to Stay: Signs of Increasing Efforts to Hold Individuals Criminally Liable for Corporate Wrongdoing >
June 4, 2019
Business Crimes Bulletin
By: Carolyn H. Kendall and Yune D. Emeritz
It is axiomatic that companies cannot do wrong without the actions of individuals. However, the trend over the past few decades, with a few exceptions, has been that individuals generally were not prosecuted for their roles in corporate wrongdoing that harmed the public welfare. In response, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced policies designed to obtain information from companies about culpable insiders in order to facilitate prosecutions of those responsible for corporate malfeasance.

The Viability of Freestanding Claims for Failure to Accommodate Disabilities Remains Unsettled >
May 14, 2019
New Jersey Labor & Employment Law
Is an employer's failure to accommodate an employee's disability, in and of itself, sufficient to form an actionable claim? This question remains unresolved, and courts are divided on whether a plaintiff can pursue a “freestanding failure to accommodate claim.”

Three-Year Delay Not Sufficient for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute >
May 8, 2019
The Legal Intelligencer
By: Sidney R. Steinberg
How long is too long for a plaintiff to let her case sit before it can be dismissed for failure to prosecute? One year? Two years? Three? according to the U.S. Court of appeals for the Third Circuit in Hildebrand v. Allegheny County, even three years of dormancy may not warrant dismissal of a potentially meritorious claim if there is no evidence that the plaintiff caused the delay or acted in bad faith.

FMLA Harassment Not Actionable Without Missed Leave >
April 11, 2019
The Legal Intelligencer
By: Sidney R. Steinberg
It is undoubtedly a bad idea for a manager to harass an employee each time she takes leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). But if the employee takes leave each time necessary, such alleged harassment, even if it is perceived a discouraging additional leave, is not illegal.

U.S. Department of Labor Proposes New Overtime Rule...Again >
March 22, 2019
The Legal Intelligencer
By: Andrea M. Kirshenbaum
After much anticipation, on March 7, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its notice of proposed rulemaking, proposing to update, among other things, the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) salary level for the executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer exempt employees from $455 to $679 per week.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next »


Subscribe to our newsletters


© 2019 Post & Schell, P.C. All Rights Reserved.