Gaetan J. Alfano to Present at PBI’s Program, “Best Practices in Pretrial Litigation in the Federal Courts 2019”

2019/11/07

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP Partner Gaetan J. Alfano will be presenting at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s (“PBI”) November 7 Program, “Best Practices in Pretrial Litigation in the Federal Courts 2019.” The program will start at 9:00 AM and takes place at the CLE Conference Center in the Wanamaker Building in Philadelphia. During this course, attendees will review the practices and procedures for pretrial litigation in the federal courts with a distinguished panel of judges and practitioners, learn the processes and strategies to litigate in federal court, and perfect planning habits. To register for this course, please visit the PBI website . For more information about Gaetan J. Alfano, we invite you to visit his biography or contact him directly. Read More

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti to Sponsor the 2019 Benefit for The Hub of Hope

2019/10/21

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce it will be an Advocate Sponsor of the 2019 Benefit for the Hub of Hope which will take place on Thursday, October 31, 2019 at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel. The Hub of Hope is a walk-in engagement center, in Philadelphia’s SEPTA’s Suburban Station, for those who are experiencing homelessness in Philadelphia. It opened its doors on January 31, 2018 and since its opening, the Hub of Hope has touched over 4,000 people through more than 125,000 visits. Since inception, the Hub of Hope has provided: over 3,500 case management visits; poured 150,000 cups of Wawa coffee; expanded meal service to provide over 50,000 meals; provided 8,000 shower ; provided 4,000 loads of laundry; conducted nearly 1,000 health clinic visits; and facilitated over 4,000 outreach transports to shelters, treatment programs, and safe havens. Each day, approximately 400 people visit the Hub of Hope and, with every visit, they move closer to permanent housing, employment, and recovery. Through a partnership between SEPTA, the City of Philadelphia, and Project HOME, the Hub of Hope opened an expanded, permanent location in Suburban Station and offers year-round services. For more information, including to volunteer or make donations in kind, please visit their website here: https://www.projecthome.org/hubofhope Read More

Preparing for Pennsylvania’s Consumer Privacy Legislation

2019/08/23

In the wake of several massive data breaches, consumer privacy (or lack thereof) has become a growing concern. For some, more surprising than the breaches was learning how much personal information companies collect from consumers—everything from Social Security numbers and email addresses to location data and demographics—and how much personal information is being sold or otherwise disseminated. As a result, legislation is being enacted around the world requiring companies to inform consumers about the collection and use of their personal information. Most notably in 2018, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, commonly referred to as the GDPR, established groundbreaking consumer rights over the collection, retention and dissemination of personal information. In the United States, in the absence of federal consumer privacy law, states are enacting privacy legislation focusing upon: requiring transparency around the consumer personal information that companies are collecting and using; and providing consumers with control over the personal information. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2020. Now, Pennsylvania is following suit. On April 5, Pennsylvania introduced House Bill 1049, which is currently pending before the Committee on Consumer Affairs. House Bill 1049, modeled after the CCPA, addresses consumer data privacy by setting forth the rights of consumers as well as the duties of companies relating to the collection of consumer personal information. Therefore, companies doing business in Pennsylvania should familiarize themselves with its key provisions and prepare for its enactment. Important Provisions Even though House Bill 1049 is in committee and will likely be amended prior to its enactment, the are several provisions of the current bill that are the cornerstones of recent consumer privacy legislation and are likely to remain in the final bill. These are: Narrow definition of “businesses” subject to compliance—House Bill 1049 applies to companies doing business in Pennsylvania satisfying one or more of the following requirements: companies with an annual gross revenue exceeding $10 million; companies that annually buy, receive, sell or share for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers; or companies that derive 50% or more of their annual revenue from selling consumers’ personal information. Read More

Worker Classification: Employee or Independent Contractor?

June 27, 2019

Under federal law, a worker must be classified as either an employee or an independent contractor. This determination is important as employees are entitled to a number of protections that are not available to independent contractors. By way of example, independent contractors are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or laws protecting workers against unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Courts and agencies apply different tests to determine proper worker classification.  The most predominant tests are the Right to Control and Economic Realities Tests. Right to Control The Internal Revenue Service applies common law rules, often referred to as the “Right to Control” test, to determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Each factor is designed to evaluate who controls how work is performed. Generally speaking, the test looks to: Behavioral Control. How much control does the company exercise over the employee? (more “yes” answers to the below questions means the worker is more likely an employee): Does the company dictate how, when and where the worker does the work? Does the company provide training to do the work? Does the company supervise performance? Financial Control. Does the company have the right to control the financial and business aspects of the job? (more “yes” answers to the below questions means the worker is more likely a contractor): Does the worker pay for his or her own business expenses? Does the worker own or lease equipment or facilities? (computer, car, office or shop). Does the worker have other customers or clients? Is the worker paid by the project instead of paid salary or hourly wage? Does the worker have the potential for profit or loss?  Relationship of the Parties. (more “yes” answers to the below questions means the worker is more likely an employee) Is the worker eligible for benefits including a pension plan, insurance, paid time off or other benefits indicating an employee relationship? Read More

Superior Court Finds That Corporate No-Hire Provision is Void Against Public Policy In A Matter Of First Impression

June 5, 2019

Earlier this year in a case of first impression, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania found corporate “no-hire” policies void against public policy. Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc. v. BeeMac Trucking, LLC, 2019 PA Super 13 (Jan. 11, 2019) involved a service contract entered between Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. (“PLS”) and BeeMac Trucking LLC. (“BeeMac”). PLS, a third-party logistics provider, assists clients in shipping materials through proper avenues at the best price. PLS contracted with BeeMac to coordinate a materials shipment from BeeMac. The contract included a provision prohibiting BeeMac from directly or indirectly hiring any employee of PLS during the life of the contract and for two years afterwards. While the agreement was still in force, four PLS employees left PLS to join BeeMac. PLS sought a preliminary injunction based on the no-hire provision. In an en banc opinion, the Superior Court voided the “no-hire” provision as against public policy. The PLS employees did not know about the provision and were not provided any additional consideration in exchange for this restraint. The Superior Court reasoned that the “no-hire” provision was, in effect, a backdoor restrictive covenant prohibiting the free movement of PLS employees.  Two judges dissented, arguing that conflating BeeMac’s corporate agreement to not hire employees with individual non-compete agreements was incorrect as a matter of law and that the “no-hire” provision was not against public policy. There are two immediate takeaways. First, the decision demonstrates that a court will restrict freedom of contract between sophisticated commercial employers if it finds that the contract derogates the interests of employees. Second, this holding dampens one potential method for a company to shield confidential business information. Accordingly, businesses should place greater emphasis on strong confidentiality agreements with key employees. The analysis of Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc. v. BeeMac Trucking, LLC may not be complete. Read More

Exit Interviews – Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks? In The Legal Intelligencer

April 30, 2019

Roughly three out of four large U.S. employers utilize exit interviews, which are considered a low-risk, low-cost way to acquire valuable information. However, companies who approach exit interviews with an “auto-pilot” mentality may expose themselves to increased employment liability if they do not think strategically about how and why they conduct such interviews. Conversely, a robust exit interview program may reduce a company’s exposure to certain types of prospective liability, such as whistleblower claims. Likewise, exit interviews can combat against disclosure of a company’s trade secrets. Depending upon a company’s industry, culture and processes, conducting exit interviews may or may not be advisable. This article discusses some considerations to guide that decision-making process. General Employment Liability Risks Departing employees can, and do, raise allegations during exit interviews that create increased employment liability exposure. This often happens when a departing employee is interviewed by a human resources representative. Even though HR employees are most likely to conduct an exit interview, they often lack insight into the employee’s history at the company and may not be prepared to meaningfully respond to an allegation that is grounded in the departing employee’s daily experience. For example, a departing employee may reveal that they had to pursue another job with better telework arrangements because their boss would not let them work from home, despite a medical condition that made teleworking desirable. Could that employee have a constructive discharge claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act due to a failure to accommodate? Perhaps. Will an HR representative be prepared to answer questions from the departing employee about why another employee in the same department was permitted to periodically work from home? Probably not. Given these potential risks, companies should assess whether their HR representatives have the time to investigate such issues (and whether they are actually likely to do so once an employee has left) before automatically embarking on an exit interview program. Read More

Court Rejects ‘Close Nexus’ Arbitration Argument in Dispute Between School, Condo Owner in The Legal Intelligencer

March 14, 2019

Gaetan J. Alfano was mentioned in an article titled, “Court Rejects ‘Close Nexus’ Arbitration Argument in Dispute Between School, Condo Owner.” Published March 14, 2019 in The Legal Intelligencer. Related Information: Click here to read the article in The Legal Intelligencer Read More

NLRB Issues Employer-Friendly Decisions Limiting Protections for Employee Complaints and Broadening the Definition of an Independent Contractor

February 28, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently issued two decisions that give companies greater flexibility to discipline employees and classify workers as independent contractors. Alstate Maintenance, LLC, 367 NLRB 68 (2019); SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., 367 NLRB 75 (2019). In Alstate, the Board rejected a standard that protected broad statements to management in front of colleagues, making it more difficult for employees to successfully claim comments are protected by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  Now, an employee’s statement is not protected unless the employee brings a truly group complaint or attempts to start group action for mutual aid or protection.  The Board rejected the argument that the comment, “we did a similar job a year prior and we didn’t receive a tip for it” was a group complaint simply because it was made in front of coworkers and used the plural pronoun “we.”  Rather, because the employer did not control tips, the comment could not be considered as made to management for the workers’ mutual aid or protection. In SuperShuttle, the NLRB returned to its long-standing broad definition of an independent contractor. The Board reaffirmed a traditional common-law agency test, which focuses on a company’s ability to control a worker’s daily tasks.  Going forward, the Board will also examine the entrepreneurial opportunity a position affords a worker as one aspect of determining his or her employment status.  The ruling may make it more difficult for workers to unionize because only employees are covered by the NLRA. Both decisions indicate that the NLRB may continue to relax restrictions on American businesses, including a company’s ability to discipline its employees and classify its workers as it chooses.  Employers should be mindful to distinguish between individual complaints, even if made in a group setting, which are not protected, and group actions concerning terms and conditions of employment, which cannot be restricted.  Read More

Pittsburgh Human Resources Association 70th Annual Conference & Exhibition

October 9, 2018

Laura C. Bunting will be presenting, “Social Media: Legal Issues When Employees Log-On (Inside and Outside of the Workplace),” at the Pittsburgh Human Resources Association’s 70th Annual Conference & Exhibition in Mars, PA on October 9, 2018. Read More

Pennsylvania Causes of Action (12th Edition)

2023/10/25

Gaetan J. Alfano co-authored the manual, “Pennsylvania Causes of Action” (ALM 12th Edition, 2023). Read More