Law Firms Are Not Immune From Attorney Age Discrimination Suits: The EEOC Goes After A Firm

On January 28, 2010, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued New York firm Kelley Drye & Warren for age discrimination. The suit concerns the firm’s policy of purportedly requiring its partners to relinquish equity and management authority at age 70 and thereafter, to rec

Employers Beware: A Supreme Court Case Reveals The Dangers of Going Into Workplace Investigations Without Legal Counsel

A unanimous United States Supreme Court decision highlights how critical it is for employers to seek legal advice when considering conducting internal workplace investigations.  Questioned employees may inform investigators that they are being harassed on the job.  Employees asserting such claims will now be subject to the same protections from retaliation by employers as those who file lawsuits for h

The Superior Court Reduces Awards In Motor Vehicle Accidents By The Amount Of Underinsured Benefits Received

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently examined payouts individuals injured in automobile accidents receive.  In Pennsylvania, drivers are required by law to be insured.  Of course, there are drivers who violate the

New Discrimination Law Prohibits Using Genetic Information In Making Employment Decisions

As of November 21, 2009, employers had to begin complying with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).  GINA is divided into two titles.  Title I prohibits insurance carriers from using genetic information to discriminate against the individuals covered under their plans.  Title II is tailored to employers and prohibits the use of an employee’s genetic information in making employme

It Is The First Opinion Of Justice Sotomayor, And It Will Have Sizeable Consequences.

There was much fanfare surrounding Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Supreme Court’s first opinion of the term, authored on December 8, 2009 by Justice Sotomayor in Mohawk Industries Inc. v. Carpent

Happy Holidays

Please accept our best wishes for the holidays.

Please click on the card below, or copy and paste the following link into your browser.

The Axelrod Firm's David Versus Goliath Commercial Defense Victory Is Published In The October 2009 Issue Of "Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review & Analysis".

The Axelrod Firm represented the defendant, a single individual, against the plaintiff, a large nursing company, Visiting Nurse Group, Inc.  "Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review & Analysis" provides professional commentary and analysis on the most significant verdicts in Pennsylvania state and federal courts.  This excerpt is taken from page 14 of the October 2009 issue:

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT

Alleged breach of fiduciary duty in renting sp

Can I Make The Other Side Pay My Attorneys’ Fees? Not Often, But You May Have An Advantage If You Plan Ahead.

This e-newsletter is the second in a two-part series.  The first addressed how cases are valued.  This addresses when attorneys’ fees are recoverable.  The answer in Pennsylvania is rarely

What’s My Case Worth? A Guide To Case Valuation

“What’s my case worth?” and “Can I make the other side pay my legal bills?” are probably the two most commonly asked questions of trial attorneys.  This e-newsletter answers the first question.  The next will answer the second.

&nbs

The Dividing Line Between Harassment Based On Gender And That Based On Sexual Orientation: The Two May Be Intertwined, But Only One Is Protected

In the workplace, Title VII, a series of federal laws, prohibits so called gender stereotyping, the harassment of employees who don't act like those of their gender.  However, Title VII is not recognized to prohibit harassment based on an employee's sexual orientation.  This leaves open the question of what to do when a homosexual male employee is harassed for not acting like a stereotypical man.

A Reminder From The Bench: Proving A Hostile Work Environment Claim Is Not Easy

On August 14, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, this region’s federal appellate court, kept the bar for proving hostile work environment claims very, very high.  “Occasional insults ... are not enough,” the court reiterated in Brooks v. CBS Radio, Inc.  To prove a hostile work environment claim, the discrimination must be so “

How Much Is Enough? The Supreme Court Sets The Standard For Making A Claim

On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a controversial decision with far-reaching implications for cases filed in federal court.  Ashcroft v. Iqbal is about the amount of detail required in a complaint, a document filed at the beginning of a lawsuit.  A complaint sets out the claims the party bringing the lawsuit, known as the plaintiff, has against the party being sued, known as the defendant.&nbs

Taking Measures To Diversify A Workforce Is Now Risky Business: The Supreme Court Rules That Correcting Discrimination Can Itself Be Discriminatory

In the latest of a series of controversial decisions, the Supreme Court, split 5 justices to 4, sounded an unlikely warning to employers: take measures to diversify your workforce at your peril.  Ricci v. Destefano concerns Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  The Act makes two types of discrimination unla

The Supreme Court Decides That Age May Factor Into An Employer's Decision To Take Action Against An Employee

The Breadth Of Ledbetter Begins To Be Examined, And Compensation Is The Key

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first bill President Obama signed into law upon taking the oath of office. The Act gives an employee paid comparatively lesser wages, benefits or other compensation as a result of discrimination additional time to file a claim. In fact, literally every time an employee is handed a disproportionately low paycheck, Ledbetter calls for the employee to be given another 300 days to do so.

Ledbetter changed the land

Assessing Your Company’s Exposure In An Employment Discrimination Case

A recent Pennsylvania case highlights the substantial liabilities employers face in navigating the complexities of employment discrimination law and offers insight into how employers can limit their exposure. A person who wins an employment discrimination case can collect, among other funds, monies for back pay and front pay. Back pay is the difference between what an employee was paid and the amount the employee should have been paid, had there been

Fighting Back: What To Do When Your Insurance Company Denies A Claim

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Contact Us