Pietragallo recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms®

2025/11/06

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms®, receiving National rankings in Tier 2 and 3, as well as Regional rankings in Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Under the Regional Tier 1 ranking, Pietragallo was recognized for 18 practice areas in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, including: Commercial Litigation (PGH & PHL) Corporate Compliance Law (PHL) Criminal Defense: White-Collar (PGH & PHL) Employment Law – Individuals (PHL) Employment Law – Management (PHL) Family Law (PGH) Health Care Law (PHL) Insurance Law (PGH) Litigation- Insurance (PGH) Litigation – Labor and Employment (PHL) Litigation – Trusts and Estates (PGH) Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (PGH) Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Trusts and Estates (PGH) Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers (PGH) Pietragallo received six Tier 2 and Tier 3 Regional rankings: Tier 2 Regional in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia for the  practice areas of Bet-the-Company Litigation, Construction Law, and Litigation – Real Estate. Tier 3 Regional in Pittsburgh for the practice areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Corporate Law, and Litigation – Construction. Pietragallo has been named as a Tier 2 National firm for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Labor & Employment and a Tier 3 National firm for our work in Health Care Law. Best Law Firms rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Clients were asked to provide feedback on firm practice groups, addressing: expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, civility, and whether they would refer another client to the firm. Lawyers also voted on expertise, responsiveness, integrity, cost-effectiveness, whether they would refer a matter to a firm, and if they consider a firm a worthy competitor. Read More

Michael A. Morse to Present at NACUA Fall 2025 CLE Workshop: Employment Law

2025/11/21

On Friday, November 21, 2025, partner Michael A. Morse will co-present on “Living Up to Your Ethical Duties When Advising About Downsizing the Workforce,” at the National Association of College and University Attorney’s Fall 2025 CLE Workshop: Employment Law. His presentation will discuss the strategies for advising institutions facing retrenchment, the lawyer’s role in strategizing and planning RIF’s, layoffs, and retrenchment, competent representation in times of crisis, and representing the entity client when individuals are impacted. Held in Washington, DC from November 19-21, this workshop will cover relevant topics such as employment litigation and labor law trends, faculty-specific issues, student athletes as employees, and other employment-related challenges. Registration is now open, click here. Read More

23 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2026 The Best Lawyers In America and Ones to Watch

2025/08/21

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 23 lawyers have been named as 2026 The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch. In addition, partner Douglas Rosenblum has been named “Lawyer of the Year” for his work in Criminal Defense: White-Collar in Philadelphia. Best Lawyers recognition is determined entirely through peer review, aiming to reflect the consensus of leading attorneys on the professional excellence of their colleagues within the same region and practice area. The following is a full list of our 2026 honorees: Gaetan Alfano Bet-the-Company Litigation Commercial Litigation Employment Law – Individuals Employment Law – Management Litigation – Labor and Employment Charles J. Avalli Family Law Litigation – Trusts and Estates Trusts and Estates Joseph J. Bosick Commercial Litigation Construction Law Litigation – Construction Pamela Coyle Brecht Health Care Law Qui Tam Law Kerri Lee Cappella Family Law Scott A. Coffina Criminal Defense: White-Collar Mark Gordon Insurance Law Litigation – Insurance Transportation Law Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr. Family Law Latia R. J. Hubbard Railroad Law David E. Lamm Product Liability Litigation – Defendants James F. Marrion Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Michael Morse Criminal Defense: White-Collar Richard J. Parks Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/ Insolvency and Reorganization Law Corporate Law Litigation – Real Estate William Pietragallo II Bet-the-Company Litigation Commercial Litigation Mass Tort Litigation/ Class Actions – Plaintiffs Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants Francis E. Pipak, Jr. Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers Marc S. Raspanti Corporate Compliance Law Criminal Defense: White-Collar Health Care Law Qui Tam Law Douglas K. Rosenblum Corporate Compliance Law Criminal Defense: White-Collar – Lawyer of the Year Clem C. Trischler Commercial Litigation Product Liability Litigation – Defendants Robert D. Weinberg Family Law Peter St. Tienne Wolff Commercial Litigation Litigation- Trusts and Estates Mass Tort Litigation/ Class Actions – Plaintiffs Trusts and Estates The Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch®: Matthew Barnes Commercial Litigation Quintin DiLucente Commercial Litigation Ashley Kenny Criminal Defense: White-Collar About Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and commercial litigation firm headquartered in Pittsburgh with five offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and West Virginia from which we serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More

Is A Performance Improvement Plan Actionable?

2025/08/20

The short answer is probably not. Performance improvement plans or PIPs are an effective tool to document an employee’s work issues, establishing constructive goals over a set time frame. Ideally, the employee improves their performance and works with newfound success. Employee redeemed.  Lawsuit averted. If the employee fails to correct their performance, however, and is ultimately terminated, the employer will be better positioned to defend against a retaliation lawsuit. Generally, PIPs are notable for their specificity, often addressing longstanding concerns. For even the most opportunistic plaintiff, blaming performance issues on discrimination or retaliation is a dubious maneuver if the PIP is detailed, corroborated by witnesses, or if the employee has acceded to some of the deficiencies. While performance improvement plans are a prudent practice, is simply issuing a PIP grounds for a lawsuit? For retaliation claims, an employee can prove a prima facie case by establishing that a reasonable employee would have found the alleged retaliatory actions “materially adverse” in that they “‘well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.’”  Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67, (2006)(quoting Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 1211, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). Courts across the country have determined that a PIP is not an adverse action. For example, in Cole v. State of Illinois, 562 F.3d 812, 817 (7th Cir. 2009), the court found that the plaintiff suing for FMLA retaliation was not subjected to an adverse action after being placed on a PIP. In a case from the 8th Circuit, the Court reasoned that placing an employee on a “performance improvement plan,” without more, did not constitute an adverse employment action. Givens v. Cingular Wireless, 396 F.3d 998, 998 (8th Cir. 2005); see also Henthorn v. Capitol Communications, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1028 (8th Cir. Read More

New Jersey’s Pay Transparency Act: What Multi-State Employers Need to Know Before June 1, 2025

2025/05/30

New Jersey’s recently-enacted Pay Transparency Act will usher in significant changes for employers operating in the Garden State. Effective June 1, 2025, the Act mandates that covered employers disclose compensation details in job postings and provide notice of promotional opportunities to current employees. Who Is Covered? The Act applies to any employer with 10 or more employees over a period of 20 calendar weeks who: Conducts business in New Jersey; Employs individuals within New Jersey; or Takes applications for employment within New Jersey. This broad definition encompasses private businesses, public entities, employment agencies, and non-profit organizations. According to the New Jersey Department of Labor & Workforce Development’s website, the Act applies to any business that has a total workforce of 10 or more employees and is: Incorporated, headquartered, or has a store or office in New Jersey; Based outside of New Jersey but has at least one employee who works in New Jersey; Based outside of New Jersey but regularly contracts with or sells products or services to New Jersey businesses or customers; or Based outside of New Jersey but accepts job applications from New Jersey residents. Notably, these examples from NJDOL broadly interpret the Act’s phrase, “takes applications for employment within” New Jersey. Job Posting Requirements Starting June 1, 2025, covered employers must include the following information in all job postings—whether internal or external—for new positions, transfers, or promotions: The hourly wage or salary, or a range thereof; and A general description of benefits and other compensation programs for which the employee would be eligible. While employers may offer compensation above the posted range, the initial disclosure aims to provide applicants with an understanding of pay and benefits at the time of application. Notifications for Promotional Opportunities The Act also requires employers to make reasonable efforts to announce, post, or otherwise make known promotional opportunities to all current employees in the affected department(s) before making a promotion decision. Read More

NJ Expands Wage Law to Cover Commissions – How It Compares to PA

2025/04/23

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that commissions are considered “wages” under New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law (“NJWPL”). This decision—which allows employees whose commissions are not timely paid to recover 200% of the unpaid commissions, plus attorneys’ fees and costs—brings the NJWPL in line with its sister state Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment Collection Law. In Musker v. Suuchi, Inc. (March 17, 2025), the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether an employee’s commissions from sales of Personal Protective Equipment during the pandemic qualified as “wages” under the NJWPL. The Court held that because commissions “directly compensate[] an employee for performing a service,” they qualify as wages, even if they are based on a formula or tied to sales of temporary or new product lines. The Court reasoned that commissions are a form of direct compensation for labor or services and not merely “supplementary incentives” (such as payments for referring a new employee or for perfect attendance, which are not covered under the NJWPL). Thus, failure to pay earned commissions in accordance with agreed-upon terms may expose New Jersey employers to significant liability, including liquidated damages of up to 200% of the unpaid amount, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. This ruling signals a notable shift in how New Jersey views commission-based compensation and puts the state on a similar footing with Pennsylvania, which has long treated commissions as wages under its own wage law. How Pennsylvania Law Treats Commissions: Under Pennsylvania’s Wage Payment and Collection Law (“WPCL”), commissions have consistently been considered “wages” provided they are earned under the terms of a written or oral agreement. This means that if an employee can show the existence of an agreement to pay commissions, and that commissions were “earned”—typically meaning the conditions for payment, e.g., closing of a sale or payment by a customer, have been satisfied—under the agreement, then nonpayment can result in liability for the employer. Read More

Losing My Religion? 8th Circuit Finds that Freedom of Religion is Not a Justification for Employee Conduct

2025/04/16

The past few decades have seen a Supreme Court receptive to claims brought on the basis of freedom of religion. For example, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (June 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring employers to cover contraception burdened the religious freedom of the owners of closely held corporations. More recently, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (June 2021), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Philadelphia’s refusal to contract with Catholic Social Services for foster care unless they agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. While the facts, arguments, and reasoning greatly differ between these cases and others like them, one thing seemed consistent: the Supreme Court generally ruled in favor of arguments based on religious freedoms. Despite this trend, the Supreme Court recently denied a petition for writ of certiorari, after the Eighth Circuit affirmed the grant of his employer’s motion for summary judgment in a religious discrimination case. In Snyder v. Arconic, Corp., Daniel Snyder, a former employee, sued Arconic after he published a statement to a message board on the Arconic company-wide intranet, which stated his displeasure with a rainbow displayed on the company’s intranet during Pride month. Specifically, Snyder wrote that “[the rainbow] is a abomination to God. Rainbow is not meant to be displayed as a sign for sexual gender.” As a result, Snyder was ultimately fired for violating Arconic’s policy prohibiting employee “conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion towards someone because of” a protected characteristic as well as their antiharassment policy. Snyder then sued for religious discrimination and retaliation. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s granting of Arconic’s motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no conflict between Snyder’s religious belief, practice, or observance and Arconic’s facially neutral employment requirements. Read More

House Bills Proposing New Independent Contractor Status Test

2025/02/26

On February 13, 2025, U.S. House Republican, Kevin Kiley, introduced two bills that would fundamentally change how employers classify workers as well as impact wage and hour litigation. Aimed at supporting and protecting independent contractors, the Modern Worker Empowerment Act (H.B. 1319) and the Modern Worker Security Act (H.B. 1320) would establish a clearer and more predictable test for determining whether a worker is classified as an independent contractor or employee and would provide a federal safe harbor that would allow companies to provide portable benefits without the risk of reclassification.   The Modern Worker Empowerment Act seeks to clarify the standard for determining whether a worker is classified as an employee or an independent contractor. The bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1928 (U.S.C. 203(e)) by classifying a worker as an independent contractor if: (1) the hiring party does not exercise significant control over how the work is performed and (2) the worker assumes the opportunities and risks inherently associated with entrepreneurship. It would further preclude the consideration of whether the hiring party requires compliance with applicable laws and regulations, compliance with health and safety standards more stringent than otherwise applicable, insurance, compliance with insurance mandates, or compliance with contracted for performance standards in the determination that a worker is an employee. It would also amend the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(3)) to use the proposed amended language to the Fair Labor Standards Act to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.   The Modern Worker Security Act seeks to allow hiring parties to provide portable benefits to independent contractors without the risk of those independent contractors being re-classified as employees by federal agencies. It would expressly preclude the provision of a portable benefit in the determination of whether a worker is an employee. Read More

Pietragallo recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms®

2024/11/07

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP has been recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms®, receiving sixteen Tier 1 Metro rankings in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. These sixteen rankings include: Commercial Litigation (PGH & PHL) Criminal Defense – White Collar (PHL) Employment Law – Individuals (PHL) Employment Law – Management (PHL) Health Care Law (PHL) Family Law (PGH) Insurance Law (PGH) Litigation – Insurance (PGH) Litigation – Labor & Employment (PGH & PHL) Litigation – Real Estate (PGH) Litigation – Trusts & Estates (PGH) Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Plaintiffs (PGH) Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Product Liability Litigation – Defendants (PGH) Trusts and Estates (PGH) Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers (PGH) In addition to the Tier 1 Metro rankings, Pietragallo also received ten Tier 2 and Tier 3 Metro rankings: Tier 2 Metro firm in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia in the respective practice areas of Bet-the-Company Litigation, Corporate Compliance Law, Construction Law, Criminal Defense: White Collar, Employment Law – Management, and Litigation – Intellectual Property. Tier 3 Metro firm in Pittsburgh in the practice areas of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Corporate Law, and Litigation – Construction. Pietragallo has also been named as a Tier 2 National firm in Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Labor & Employment and a Tier 3 National firm for our work in Health Care Law. Best Law Firms rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Clients were asked to provide feedback on firm practice groups, addressing: expertise, responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, civility, and whether they would refer another client to the firm. Read More

Pietragallo Expands With Three New Associates

2024/10/21

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the addition of three new associates to the firm’s Pittsburgh and Philadelphia Offices. The group of three new associates includes: Tatyanah M. Brehouse joins our Employment & Labor team in our Philadelphia office. Tatyanah was a clerk at a regional boutique law firm where she focused on employment and business matters. She was also an intern for the Honorable George W. Overton of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court. While attending law school at Drexel University School of Law, she participated in multiple pro bono projects including Drexel’s Estate Planning Clinic, the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project, and the Campaign for Working Families Tax Clinic. About Pietragallo Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and commercial litigation firm headquartered in Pittsburgh with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More