To Discuss Your Case Call Us Today 610-896-9909Committed to the passionate pursuit of your rightsScott M. Pollins Attorney At Law
HomeFirm OverviewAttorney ProfilePractice OverviewResource LinksContact Us

Employment Law News

News

[02/05] January unemployment rate drops to 9.7 percent
[02/05] Job losses from Great Recession about to get worse
[02/04] Productivity up in 4th quarter as labor costs fall
[02/04] First-time jobless claims rise unexpectedly
[02/04] Boston skycap suit goes national after ruling

More...

Articles

Federal Employment Laws

Below are some of the federal employment laws that have been enacted to protect various employee rights. Employees who have been denied their rights under one of these important laws may have various forms of relief available to them, including filing civil lawsuit. For more information on employee rights, contact an employment law attorney in your area. You also may be entitled to additional protections under state and local laws.

More...

What is a Disability Under the ADA?

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an individual is classified as disabled if he or she meets one of the following definitions:

More...

Case Summaries

[02/08] Johnson v. Weld County
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action based on defendant's failure to hire plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's evidence suggesting that the male candidate it hired as Fiscal Officer had superior qualifications to plaintiff's, as well as its evidence that she was not, at the time of the hiring decision, disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

[02/08] Covell v. Menkis
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit following his termination by a government agency, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate that he had a property interest in his employment because he did not establish that there was a mutually explicit understanding that he could only be terminated for cause; and 2) plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the defendant's actions deprived him of a liberty interest.

[02/08] Turner v. Saloon, Ltd.
In plaintiff's employment discrimination suit against his former employer, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the judgment of the district court is affirmed to the extent that it dismissed plaintiff's ADA claims, his overtime claims, and his Title VII retaliation claim; but 2) judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiff's hostile-workplace claim based on alleged sexual harassment is reversed and remanded as the court dismissed the claim after excluding most of the alleged instances of harassment as time-barred, contrary to Supreme Court precedent establishing that in a hostile-workplace claim, acts of harassment falling outside Title VII's statute of limitations may be considered as long as some act of harassment occurred within the limitations period.

[02/08] Hall v. Liberty Life Ins. Co. of Boston
In plaintiff's suit seeking reinstatement of her long-term disability benefits, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment with respect to benefit plan's termination of plaintiff's benefits and its claim for partial reimbursement is affirmed; and 2) district court's imposition of an equitable lien on plaintiff's Social Security benefits and its denial of attorney fees to the benefits plan are vacated and remanded.

[02/08] Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
In an employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff during the pendency of her Chapter 13 proceedings, summary judgment for defendant on the ground of judicial estoppel is affirmed where plaintiff failed to disclose her employment discrimination suit to the bankruptcy court, and thus took inconsistent positions under oath with the intent of misleading the court.

More...

Frequently Asked Questions

Learn More: Employment Law

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Scott M. Pollins' law firm is located in southeastern Pennsylvania (Ardmore, Pennsylvania). Lawyer Scott Pollins assists clients in the Philadelphia-Main Line area, including the cities of Ardmore, Philadelphia, West Chester, Bryn Mawr, Haverford, Bala-Cynwyd, Villanova, Media, Doylestown, and Norristown, as well as Delaware County, Bucks County, Montgomery County, Chester County, and Philadelphia County in protecting their consumer rights.

Pennsylvania • New Jersey • Maryland