Michael A. Morse will be presenting at the 2014 ABA Civil False Claims Act & Qui Tam Enforcement National Institute on June 4-6, 2014, in Washington, DC. Read More
PITTSBURGH and PHILADELPHIA, PA – William Pietragallo, II, founding partner of the law firm of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP was selected as a Pittsburgh Top 50 Lawyer by Super Lawyers 2014. Mr. Pietragallo was recognized for his work in Business Litigation. Marc S. Raspanti, name partner in the firm, was selected as a Philadelphia Top 100 Lawyer and a Top 100 Lawyer in Pennsylvania by Super Lawyers 2014. Mr. Raspanti was recognized for his work in the White Collar Criminal Defense Practice Area. These designations are awarded to lawyers who received the highest point totals in the Pennsylvania Super Lawyers 2014 nomination, research, and blue ribbon review process.
Twenty-three attorneys in total were named by the publication as 2014 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers. In addition to Pietragallo and Raspanti, the following firm counsel were recognized by the publication as 2014 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers, Gaetan J. Alfano, Joseph J. Bosick, Mark Gordon, Christopher A. Iacono, Kathryn M. Kenyon, James W. Kraus, Daniel J. McGravey, Michael A. Morse, Francis E. Pipak, Jr., Kevin E. Raphael, Douglas Rosenblum, Clem C. Trischler, and Paul K. Vey. The following firm attorneys were recognized as 2014 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Stars, Ethan J. Barlieb, Sarah R. Lavelle, Leslie A. Mariotti, Alicia M. Passerin, John A. Schwab, and Peter S. Wolff. Selection as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer is an honor reserved for only 5% of the Pennsylvania Bar. The arduous selection process encompasses a strict nomination, research, and review process. Read More
This article was originally published in the June 2014 issue of New Jersey Lawyer Magazine, a publication of the New Jersey State Bar Association, and is reprinted here with permission.
Related Information:
FCPA Compliance in the Healthcare Industry Read More
Recently, the EEOC and the FTC issued joint guidance to employers, employees, and applicants on the use of background checks. The pinnacle consideration is to ensure that specific individuals or groups are not unfairly targeted. Prior to conducting a background check, an employer must receive the employee’s or applicant’s written permission. The employer must reveal the scope of the background check and inform the party that any information received may result in an adverse employment action. The guidance, however, warns employees and applicants that refusal to provide permission may result in the denial of employment or termination.
If the background check reveals information that warrants an adverse employment action, the employer must take the following actions:
1. Provide the employee or applicant “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” as provided by the background screening entity.
2. Advise the employee or applicant that they were rejected or terminated due to information revealed on the background check.
3. Provide the employee or applicant with the name, address, and phone number of the entity that conducted the report.
4. Advise the employee or applicant that they may dispute the report and receive an additional free report from the entity within sixty days.
If an adverse employment action is taken, the background check and any related records must be retained for one year (two years for educational, government, and federal contractor entities). After the retention period, the employer may dispose of the background check through a secure process.
Employers must be mindful that a lack of compliance with this guidance presents liability issues and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Further, employers must be mindful of state and local ordinances that may apply. Specifically, many government entities have implemented “ban the box” initiatives, which restrict an employer’s ability to inquire into the prior criminal history of employees and applicants. Read More
The United States Supreme Court issued two unanimous decisions on April 29, 2014 relating to the award of attorney fees in “exceptional” patent infringement cases.
In Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., Case No. 12-1184, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that the Brooks Furniture framework for determining whether a case is “exceptional” under Section 285 of the Patent Act is unduly rigid and impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to district courts to award reasonable attorney fees to prevailing accused infringers. Section 285 states: “The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
In Brooks Furniture, the Federal Circuit held that a case may be deemed “exceptional” only in two limited circumstances, either: (1) when there has been some “material inappropriate misconduct” (e.g., willful infringement, patent procurement fraud, or litigation misconduct) related to the matter in litigation; or (2) when the litigation is both “objectively baseless” (i.e., so unreasonable that no reasonable litigant could believe that it would succeed on the merits) and “brought in subjective bad faith” (i.e., the plaintiff actually knows that its claim has no objective foundation).
The Supreme Court rejected the Brooks Furniture framework established by the Federal Circuit for a number of reasons. The Supreme Court stated that the Brooks Furniture framework is too restrictive in defining only two categories of cases in which reasonable attorney fee awards are allowed. The Supreme Court noted that the first category of cases involves “material inappropriate misconduct” which appears to extend largely to independently sanctionable conduct, which is not the appropriate benchmark. Rather, a district court may award reasonable attorney fees in the rare case in which a party’s unreasonable conduct, while not necessarily independently sanctionable, is nonetheless so “exceptional” as to justify an award of fees. Read More
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Marc S. Raspanti, a partner in the law firm of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, presented at the ALI CLE False Claims Act Institute in New York, NY on May 13, 2014.
Mr. Raspanti participated on the panel “Damage Theories.” The panel discussed how damages should be calculated, whether damages should be mitigated first, whether relators could receive portions of government fines, and at what point fines and penalties become excessive.
Mr. Raspanti is recognized as one of the most successful, skilled, and experienced qui tam attorneys in the United States. Since 1989, Mr. Raspanti has litigated many of the most complex and important cases in the history of the federal False Claims Act. He has served as lead counsel for whistleblowers in false claims cases that have resulted in over $1.8 billion in recoveries for federal and state taxpayers. He focuses his practice on federal and state qui tam litigation, white collar criminal defense, criminal and civil health care fraud defense, internal corporate investigations, compliance, professional licensing litigation and complex civil litigation.
Mr. Raspanti received his B.A. from Villanova University and his J.D. from Temple University School of Law. He frequently speaks, writes, lectures and comments on white collar and health care fraud issues throughout the country. Read More
A recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals supports employers in reducing their litigation exposure when they have properly crafted and enforced safety policies. In Coleman v. Pennsylvania State Police, No. 13-3255, 2014 WL 1064379 (3d Cir. Mar. 20, 2014), the court affirmed a ruling in favor of the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) against disability discrimination and other claims by a probationary State Police Cadet. Prior to completing training, Coleman suffered a traumatic brain injury while off duty. Because he suffered seizures, the last in 2010, Coleman needed to work in a limited duty capacity. Under PSP policy, a Trooper, whether probationary or not, must be seizure free for 5 years in order to work full duty. Although Coleman’s commanding officer believed she could “more than accommodate” him for at least 5 years with limited duty assignments, the PSP recommended termination because Coleman “would not be able to resume full duty until August of 2015 at the earliest, and every subsequent seizure would re-start the five-year clock….”
The district court granted PSP’s motion for summary judgment, finding, among other things, that Coleman could not prove that he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of a full status trooper. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, finding that, since Coleman never completed his required probationary training, he could not prove he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job at the time of his dismissal. PSP had also shown that “the threat of a seizure is significant enough to constitute a ‘direct threat’ and that the PSP seizure policy is a justified response to that threat,” since its purpose is to protect the officers, their colleagues and the public from a significant risk of substantial harm.
Where safety is essential to their work, employers, including police departments and other public service employers, may implement policies that apply to all employees, whether full status or probationary, to ensure the safety of employees and others impacted. Read More
PITTSBURGH, PA- Kathryn M. Kenyon, a partner in the law firm of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick and Raspanti, LLP, presented at the American Bar Association’s Equal Justice Conference on May 1-3, 2014 in Portland, OR.
Ms. Kenyon presented on pro bono partnerships. The Conference was presented by the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association. The conference brought together all components of the legal community to discuss equal justice issues as they relate to the delivery of legal services to the poor and low-income individuals in need of legal assistance. The emphasis of the Conference was on strengthening partnerships among the key players in the civil justice system.
Ms. Kenyon is Chair of the Administrative Board of the Allegheny County Bar Foundation’s Pittsburgh Pro Bono Partnership and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Neighborhood Legal Services Association where she serves as Treasurer. She is a former member of the United Way of Allegheny County’s Women’s Leadership Council. Ms. Kenyon was past Treasurer of the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Division and served as Chair of its Public Service Committee for over six years.
Ms. Kenyon was a recipient of the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network 2013 Excellence Award which recognized Ms. Kenyon for her efforts in support of the clients served by the civil legal programs of the Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network. In addition, she was given the Outstanding Achievement Award by the Duquesne University Law Alumni Association for 2013. Ms. Kenyon has also been selected as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyers Rising Star for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 in the area of Health Care and from 2005 through 2009 in the area of Business Litigation.
Ms. Kenyon received her J.D. from the Duquesne University School of Law. Read More
