Timothy Kolman & Associates
Employment
Law News:
Employment Law Outlook 2009

This is a scary time to be an employee. The unemployment rate has recently risen from 5.5% to 6.5% and the outlook, at least from the standpoint of Goldman Sachs economists expects that the unemployment rate will hit 8.5% by the end of next year and may go even higher in 2010.

Also, there has been a significant increase in the number of people looking to change their jobs. In reality, the current unemployment rate may even be higher than the 6.5%. The only people who are counted as unemployed are those who receive unemployment benefits. Those who have run out of unemployment benefits or who are underemployed, do not measure in the statistics.

All of this disturbing news means that if you lose your job, it will be much harder to replace your income and it will take much longer to get another job with the same benefits and prospects.

You have to be extra careful before you walk out on a job. The jobless rate is now at 14 year high. Economists had expected a loss of 200,000 jobs in October because of the financial crisis but it turns out that the news was even worse than expected and some 240,000 were cut in October. 1.2 million jobs have already vanished so far this year.

Although it appears that the Obama Administration is sensitive to the human consequences of this economic downturn, it will take the new administration quite some time, possibly several years, before the economy turns around and jobs are created.

As an employee, if it appears you are about to lose your job or you’re the victim of the “paper trail” which employers now sometimes utilize in order to justify a termination, you need to call us.

Your job may be threatened if you work in a factory because factory payrolls fell 90,000 last month (the biggest drop since July 2003), after previously falling 56,000 in September. The housing slump has shed almost 50,000 last month and financial companies cut 24,000 jobs after firing 16,000 last month. This has had an effect on service industries, from restaurants to retailers who cut 108,000 workers in October. The September number was almost twice that-201,000 job losses in August and September turned out to be deeper than originally reported. Employers cut 127,000 jobs in August, compared with 73,000 previously reported.

Watch this space for updated news about how you can keep your job in these troubled times.
Copyright TKA 2008

Timothy Kolman & Associates
Since 1991
Posted February, 2009
Employers Use The Recession As A Cover For Discrimination

This is an update regarding the unemployment situation which is still extremely serious.
Although jobless claims fell more than expected in the first week of April, there are still millions of people unemployed and underemployed. The number of people receiving unemployment compensation, at least officially, is close to 6 million. However, the real number is likely to be much larger. There are many for whom benefits have expired , who are not on the unemployment roles because they have taken part-time jobs or have simply given up looking.

Perhaps, most disturbingly, employers are using the poor market and the unemployment statistics to discriminate against employees. The excuse du jour, for letting someone go now, is the recession. Although, it is true, certain industries are suffering downturns and do have to legitimately lay off workers, others are simply using it as an excuse to "clean house". In other words , the recession is used as an excuse for laying off older workers, laying off minority workers or those with a disability. We have experienced numerous cases where the excuse of recession has been utilized and we have requested , to ensure that the employer is not lying, detailed information supporting the employer's assertion that their business is in decline. Interestingly, no business has yet given us their financial information.

Employees need to be aware that in these troubled times, employers may use the recession as an excuse to terminate or lay off employees. In one case, our client was laid off, ostensibly because of a downturn in work, only to find that his job was advertised on the radio, the next week.

If this happened to you, or if you have concerns about the integrity of your lay off, you need to call us. There is never any obligation and we are here to help.
Timothy Kolman & Associates
Since 1991
Posted April, 2009
Updated News On Timothy M. Kolman

Timothy M. Kolman has been certified, by Harvey Bartle, Chief Justice of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as a Federal Mediator and Arbitrator.
Timothy Kolman & Associates
Since 1991
Posted April, 2009
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

You may remember Lilly Ledbetter from the Obama campaign. She appeared on television telling us that the U.S. Supreme Court had prevented her from pursuing her case for all the years that she was paid less than men, for the same job. The Supreme Court in the Ledbetter case, held that Ms. Ledbetter had to file her complaint within 300 days of the discrimination and that it didn't matter that the discrimination had been hidden from her by her employer for many years before.

In response to the Ledbetter decision , Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Act redefines what constitutes a violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and enables liability for back pay, for unfair treatment, to go back no more two years preceding the filing of a charge of discrimination. In other words if you file your EEOC complaint on April 15th, 2009, the Court could award you back pay going back to April 14th, 2007.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act increases a Plaintiff's opportunity to get compensation for unfair treatment by extending the time for which the Plaintiff can recover.

As always, if you have any questions about the Ledbetter Act or any other aspect of employment law, give us a call.


















Timothy Kolman & Associates
Since 1991
Posted May, 2009
Timothy Kolman & Associates
Since 1991
Review Our Employment News Updates Below
Look for updates periodically related to employment news on our site here. Feel free to contact us with an interesting case or story you might want to share.
"Should You Take A Pay Cut In Order To Keep Your Job"

Employers are using the recession as a means to cut the wages of employees. Sometimes, these reductions are necessary because the Company simply isn’t doing well but employees are at a huge disadvantage when the employer comes to them and demands that they take a decrease in their pay.

First, the employee generally has no direct knowledge as to how badly the Company is doing. The best you can do to see if there is any truth to the employers’ representation is to look at certain indicators.

Some of the things you might look for are whether orders are down from last year, whether the Company is laying people off or is still advertising for positions, whether there are meetings or memos on the need to increase sales and how much pressure the managers are  under, to increase sales and boost revenues.

Even if your Company is misrepresenting its financial position, the reality is probably that you cannot afford to lose your job in this economy even if you are paid less. If you need to accept a reduced salary, in order to keep paying the bills, you should do so and try to get another job when and where you can. Also, you need to find out, if you can, whether others who are similarly situated to you, have also been told that their salaries are being reduced. If you find that only your salary has been reduced but others have not, you need to give us a call because that decision, on the part of your employer, may be discriminatory in nature.

We will have to ask you a number of questions to determine this and then, consult with you about the best way to move forward without jeopardizing your salary or your position.

This is delicate and we need to move cautiously. Our aim, like a good doctor, is to first do no harm.
Timothy Kolman & Associates
Since 1991
Posted May, 2009
"HAVE YOU RELOCATED INTO PENNSYLVANIA AND THEN BEEN FIRED?"

If you or your family has been relocated to take a job in Pennsylvania and then, shortly following relocation, your employment was terminated, you may have a case.

Although Pennsylvania presumes you are an employee at will, who can be terminated for any reason or no reason, your relocation to the Commonwealth from another state to take up an employment position here is a factor in determining whether there is, what Pennsylvania calls “additional consideration.”

Additional consideration can convert an “employee at will relationship” into one for a fixed period. The length of this period of employment, imputed by Court, depends on the amount of detriment you have suffered.

So, for example, if you and your family have given up your house, relocated a long distance and given up other employment possibilities, in order to take a job in Pennsylvania then, if you are terminated shortly after getting here, the Court may impute a fixed term of employment for you of possibly one year or more. However, if your detriment is less, if you have relocated a shorter distance, not sold a house, not relocated with your family and not given up other employment prospects in order to take a job in the Commonwealth then, under those circumstances, the Court may impute a lesser time for the term of your employment contract.

The upshot of all of this is that relocation and detriment can create an actual “term of employment.” In other words, instead of being an employee at will, you become an employee for the fixed term and, when the employer does not keep you employed for that term, you can sue for compensation for the balance of the term. Therefore, an employee who has suffered a considerable detriment to relocate to Pennsylvania, and who is terminated after one month of employment through no fault of his own, could sue for the “balance of the contract,” possibly one year, depending on the degree of detriment.

If you have relocated to the Commonwealth and you have been terminated, you may have rights. You need to call us so we can review your case and determine its strength. As always, there is no charge and all our cases are taken on a contingency.

Timothy Kolman & Associates
Since 1991
Posted May, 2009
"Is Your Employer Short Changing You ?"

If your employer is short changing you, in these difficult times, by not paying overtime or by reducing your salary, you need to call us. If you have made a complaint about a reduction in salary, a problem with overtime, or not being given equal pay and you have been terminated, retaliated against, written up or demoted, you may have a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 209 et. sec. makes it unlawful “to discharge or discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this [act], or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding…” 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).

Even if you make an informal complaint about the failure to pay you what you are owed, that is protected activity under the law and your employer cannot impose an adverse employment action on you. An adverse employment action would be any kind of retaliation, such as termination, discipline, suspension or demotion.

If you have made a complaint about your pay, and you have been retaliated against, give us a call. As always, there is no charge and we look forward to helping you.


Timothy Kolman & Associates
Since 1991
Posted June, 2009
"Minority Owned Corporations, What Are Their Rights" ?

Can a minority owned corporation sue another corporation for race or gender discrimination?

Unfortunately, if you own a corporation and you are a minority, a woman, a Hispanic, African-American or some other minority and your corporation is precluded from a contract or dismissed from a contract and you believe it is because of your race or gender, do you have a remedy? Can you sue for race or gender discrimination?

The answer unfortunately is no. As an individual, you are not in “privity of contract” with the corporation who has discriminated and the discrimination victim is your corporation, not you. The law makes a distinction between you and your corporation. You are two separate legal persons and in this case, it is the corporation who is the victim, not you. Because of that you, as an individual, cannot bring a discrimination action and your corporation does not have the right and therefore lacks the capacity to bring such actions. Therefore, unfortunately, you are out of luck. The law has not yet evolved to the point where minority corporations can assert their rights when they are discriminated against.

Timothy Kolman & Associates
Since 1991
Posted June, 2009
"Cobra Coverage"   August, 09