Employment Law & Personal Injury in Chester County and Montgomery County
At the Gallagher Law Group, P.C., formerly known as the Law Offices of John A. Gallagher, P.C., we are committed to serving the needs of our clients across the range of workplace rights issues, from handling Unemployment Compensation Hearings to the litigation of complex employer retaliation claims or Non-Compete matters. We also handle personal injury and disability claims that affect your ability to work.
To learn how our experience and distinctive approach to employment law can benefit you, contact us in Paoli or any of our other five southeastern Pennsylvania offices.
We even the odds when you're facing a major corporate employer
Our thorough integration of high technology into every aspect of our practice allows us to develop and present cases with the maximum efficiency. That gives us the chance to use our time keeping in touch with our clients rather than groping for files and phone numbers. It also helps us confront even the biggest employers on something like an even footing. Our opponents often outspend us, but they never overwhelm us.
Employer defendants in workplace litigation are notorious for papering their smaller and financially weaker opponents into submission. The thought is that eventually, either you or your lawyer won't be able to afford to continue with the case or will lose the will do carry on. We know how to neutralize that advantage by seizing the initiative in defining the issues, streamlining the discovery stages of the case, and making sure your claim is ready for settlement or even trial before our opponents even know what hit them.
John A. Gallagher was selected as a Top Employment Lawyer by his peers in both 2009 and 2010 by Main Line Today. Our experience helps us position your case for prompt success.
While it's often to your advantage to settle the case on favorable terms as quickly as possible, we can usually get your claims before a judge or administrative hearing officer within six months of filing. That's lightning fast in the world of litigation. Our focus on representing individuals with workplace issues, the selective nature of our practice, and our ability to respond quickly to your needs and tactical opportunities can make all the difference in the outcome of your case.
We represent all kinds of clients: professionals, hourly workers, salaried employees, foreign nationals, laborers, professionals, technicians, older workers caught in a reduction in force, and female middle managers whose careers have mysteriously stalled under the weight of the glass ceiling.
In addition to employment law matters, we handle Disability Claims and routinely assist our clients on Personal Injury claims that affect their ability to work. We know how to maximize personal injury recoveries, while at the same time protecting your loss of income through Short-Term Disability and Long-Term Disability claims. We are also experienced at protecting your job rights through statutes such as FMLA and ADA, and laws protecting you from wrongful termination.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
PHILADELPHIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER TELLS YOU HOW TO COMPLETE A CLAIMANT QUESTIONNAIRE
PENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY
If you are applying for unemployment benefits in Chester County, Montgomery County, Delaware County or Philadelphia, you may have to complete a Claimant Questionnaire. Usually, these are sent out when you have been terminated and the employer is fighting your unemployment claim. Here are some important things to know.
PHILADELPHIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER
One, you do not have to answer each question! The form suggests that you do, but you do not have to.
UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER IN CHESTER COUNTY
For example, Question 4 asks if you quit your job or took a leave of absence. The way it is written, it seems to some that you must pick one of these. You do not! Answer this question only if you were not fired.
UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY
It gets tricky if you were forced to quit. If you were forced to quit in lieu of being fired, then answer Question 4, and then explain your answer in response to Question 5. Do not be ashamed to tell the truth. Do not try to make it sound better than it was. This works against you! Just say, they gave me a choice to quit or be fired, so I quit. Then check "yes" for question 6.
APPEALING THE DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IN PENNSYLVANIA
Whether you are initially granted or denied unemployment benefits, the decision can be appealed by you or the employer. Then a Hearing is held in Springfield, Malvern, Norristown, Bristol or Philadelphia. This Hearing is where you get to tell your full story!
CONTINGENT FEE LAWYER FOR UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS
We routinely handle unemployment claims for people in Paoli, Malvern, Downingtown, West Chester, Blue Bell, King of Prussia, Plymouth Meeting, Lansdale, Doylestown, Chalfont, Broomall, Media, Lower Providence, Philadelphia and all of the surrounding areas in Pennsylvania on a contingent fee basis. The key is to make sure that you tell the truth to unemployment, and only answer questions that apply to you.
UNEMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY IN BUCKS COUNTY
Only answer Question 6 if you quit your job. Answer 7 no matter what. If you cannot work due to a physical restriction, then you cannot get unemployment benefits. But, if you have only minor limitations, spell that out! You do not want to lose your claim because unemployment mistakenly believes that you are disabled from all jobs.
PA DISABILITY LAWYER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY
For example, even if you cannot perform your old job in the factory operating a crane because of a bad arm, that does not mean that you cannot do a different job in a whole new vocational area, such as working at a desk. Question 7 is tricky, because most people assume it is asking whether you have work restrictions that affected your ability to do your old job. That is not the case. The question is intended to determine whether you have work restrictions that would prevent you from doing any job, or at least a broad range of jobs.
PA UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER IN PLYMOUTH MEETING
Only answer Question 8 if you quit your job! It is not applicable ("N/A") if you were fired. If you were terminated, do not answer Question 8.
PA DISABILITY ATTORNEY SERVING CHESTER COUNTY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DELAWARE COUNTY, BUCKS COUNTY AND PHILADELPHIA
Question 9 applies if you answered yes to 7. If you have a partial disability, then answer yes to number 9. If you answer no to number 9, you will not get unemployment - if that happens, you may want to talk to Social Security Disability Attorney. Or, if your condition is temporary, and you will be able to work in a few weeks or so, then explain that here.
And reapply for benefits every two weeks until you can finally answer yes to this question!
Otherwise, Question 9 applies to whether you are unavailable because of personal reasons, such as you are incarcerated, you are caring for an ill loved one, you are temporarily out of state, etc. Just explain honestly, and reapply every two weeks until you once again become able for work.
PA UNEMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY HELPING PEOPLE IN NEWTOWN SQUARE, DOWNINGTOWN, LANSDALE, FORT WASHINGTON, COATESVILLE, OAKS, SPRINGFIELD, ROYERSFORD, POTTSTOWN
Question 10 is a lot like Question 9. It really applies to non-medical situations, such as incarceration, being away from the area, caring for a loved one, etc.
PA UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER HELPING PEOPLE IN PHILADELPHIA, WEST CHESTER, MEDIA, NORRISTOWN AND SPRINGFIELD
Be careful with the catch all offer to explain your situation that follows Question 10. The more you say, the more it can be used against you in an unemployment hearing. Remember, it is at the unemployment hearing that disputed claims are won or lost, no matter what happens initially!
If you are applying for unemployment benefits in Chester County, Montgomery County, Delaware County or Philadelphia, you may have to complete a Claimant Questionnaire. Usually, these are sent out when you have been terminated and the employer is fighting your unemployment claim. Here are some important things to know.
PHILADELPHIA UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER
One, you do not have to answer each question! The form suggests that you do, but you do not have to.
UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER IN CHESTER COUNTY
For example, Question 4 asks if you quit your job or took a leave of absence. The way it is written, it seems to some that you must pick one of these. You do not! Answer this question only if you were not fired.
UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY
It gets tricky if you were forced to quit. If you were forced to quit in lieu of being fired, then answer Question 4, and then explain your answer in response to Question 5. Do not be ashamed to tell the truth. Do not try to make it sound better than it was. This works against you! Just say, they gave me a choice to quit or be fired, so I quit. Then check "yes" for question 6.
APPEALING THE DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IN PENNSYLVANIA
Whether you are initially granted or denied unemployment benefits, the decision can be appealed by you or the employer. Then a Hearing is held in Springfield, Malvern, Norristown, Bristol or Philadelphia. This Hearing is where you get to tell your full story!
CONTINGENT FEE LAWYER FOR UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS
We routinely handle unemployment claims for people in Paoli, Malvern, Downingtown, West Chester, Blue Bell, King of Prussia, Plymouth Meeting, Lansdale, Doylestown, Chalfont, Broomall, Media, Lower Providence, Philadelphia and all of the surrounding areas in Pennsylvania on a contingent fee basis. The key is to make sure that you tell the truth to unemployment, and only answer questions that apply to you.
UNEMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY IN BUCKS COUNTY
Only answer Question 6 if you quit your job. Answer 7 no matter what. If you cannot work due to a physical restriction, then you cannot get unemployment benefits. But, if you have only minor limitations, spell that out! You do not want to lose your claim because unemployment mistakenly believes that you are disabled from all jobs.
PA DISABILITY LAWYER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY
For example, even if you cannot perform your old job in the factory operating a crane because of a bad arm, that does not mean that you cannot do a different job in a whole new vocational area, such as working at a desk. Question 7 is tricky, because most people assume it is asking whether you have work restrictions that affected your ability to do your old job. That is not the case. The question is intended to determine whether you have work restrictions that would prevent you from doing any job, or at least a broad range of jobs.
PA UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER IN PLYMOUTH MEETING
Only answer Question 8 if you quit your job! It is not applicable ("N/A") if you were fired. If you were terminated, do not answer Question 8.
PA DISABILITY ATTORNEY SERVING CHESTER COUNTY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, DELAWARE COUNTY, BUCKS COUNTY AND PHILADELPHIA
Question 9 applies if you answered yes to 7. If you have a partial disability, then answer yes to number 9. If you answer no to number 9, you will not get unemployment - if that happens, you may want to talk to Social Security Disability Attorney. Or, if your condition is temporary, and you will be able to work in a few weeks or so, then explain that here.
And reapply for benefits every two weeks until you can finally answer yes to this question!
Otherwise, Question 9 applies to whether you are unavailable because of personal reasons, such as you are incarcerated, you are caring for an ill loved one, you are temporarily out of state, etc. Just explain honestly, and reapply every two weeks until you once again become able for work.
PA UNEMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY HELPING PEOPLE IN NEWTOWN SQUARE, DOWNINGTOWN, LANSDALE, FORT WASHINGTON, COATESVILLE, OAKS, SPRINGFIELD, ROYERSFORD, POTTSTOWN
Question 10 is a lot like Question 9. It really applies to non-medical situations, such as incarceration, being away from the area, caring for a loved one, etc.
PA UNEMPLOYMENT LAWYER HELPING PEOPLE IN PHILADELPHIA, WEST CHESTER, MEDIA, NORRISTOWN AND SPRINGFIELD
Be careful with the catch all offer to explain your situation that follows Question 10. The more you say, the more it can be used against you in an unemployment hearing. Remember, it is at the unemployment hearing that disputed claims are won or lost, no matter what happens initially!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Judge Sotomayor’s Employment Law Decisions
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, was recently nominated for the United States Supreme Court by President Obama. Judge Sotomayor was appointed to the Second Circuit by President George H.W. Bush. During her time on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has ruled on a number of employment law cases. She has sided with both employers and employees. This article highlights some of her key decisions while on the Second Circuit.
Decisions in Favor of Employees
In Raniola v. Bratton, a 2001 retaliation case, Judge Sotomayor sided with a female police officer in the New York City Police Department. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Raniola’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims and remanded for a retrial of those claims. The court held that Raniola, who was given undesirable shifts and threatened after she complained about sex discrimination, had presented enough evidence for a jury to find that she faced a hostile work environment because of her sex. In addition, the court found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that there were retaliatory motives behind her being suspended, placed on probation and ultimately terminated.
Cruz v. Coach Stores, was a 2000 case involving claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allegations of hostile work environment, race discrimination, failure to promote and retaliation. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Coach on the plaintiff’s termination and disparate impact claims, but reversed summary judgment on her hostile work environment claim. The court noted that Cruz alleged that she had experienced racial slurs and sexual harassment and that the evidence of a human resource manager’s physically threatening behavior made this a case involving not just “boorish conduct” but “actionable sexual harassment.” Thus, a reasonable jury could decide that Cruz faced a hostile environment because of her sex.
In a 2000 decision in Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Judge Sotomayor reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant employer on Parker’s discriminatory discharge claims. In Parker, a former employee sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Among other things, the Second Circuit held that there was a factual dispute as to whether Parker could perform his job with reasonable accommodation and whether he was fired because of his disability.
In a dissenting opinion in EEOC v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Judge Sotomayor would have vacated the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. In this 2003 decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had alleged that the defendant discriminated against truck drivers who took certain prescription medications and therefore violated the ADA.
Cases Siding With Employers
The most recent employment law case before Judge Sotomayor was Ricci v. DeStefano, a “reverse” race discrimination case, in 2008. There was no written opinion in this case, only a couple of paragraphs in which the panel basically agreed with the lower court’s reasoning. In Ricci, the Second Circuit panel upheld the city of New Haven’s decision to set aside the results of a promotional exam for firefighters. The exam results basically meant that no black or Hispanic firefighters would be eligible for promotions, which would be a disproportionate racial impact. However, refusing to validate the results meant that the white firefighters who scored highest would not be promoted, and they sued. By setting aside the results, the panel ruled that the city was trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII. The United States Supreme Court heard the firefighters’ appeal this past spring.
In a 2004 opinion written by Judge Sotomayor in Williams v. R.H. Donnelley Corp., the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer. Williams involved a Title VII action brought by an African-American former employee who alleged that she was denied promotions and a lateral transfer because of her race and sex. The Second Circuit held that the employer’s failure to transfer Williams to an account executive position at a different location was not adverse employment action. In addition, the court held that there was no discriminatory motive for the employer’s refusal to create a position for Williams.
In the 1999 decision in Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, Judge Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held that a nurse failed to present a prima facie race discrimination case. The nurse, a disabled black woman, claimed that the hospital did not give her the same accommodations that it gave to white employees. The Second Circuit found that the nurse did not establish that she was similarly situated to the white employees.
Conclusion
In addition to the cases discussed above, there are numerous other employment law cases in which Judge Sotomayor either participated or wrote the opinion. Judge Sotomayor has sided with both employees and employers in a variety of other employment circumstances. If confirmed, she will likely bring an evenhanded and objective view to employment law cases that reach the Supreme Court.
Decisions in Favor of Employees
In Raniola v. Bratton, a 2001 retaliation case, Judge Sotomayor sided with a female police officer in the New York City Police Department. The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Raniola’s hostile work environment and retaliation claims and remanded for a retrial of those claims. The court held that Raniola, who was given undesirable shifts and threatened after she complained about sex discrimination, had presented enough evidence for a jury to find that she faced a hostile work environment because of her sex. In addition, the court found that there was enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that there were retaliatory motives behind her being suspended, placed on probation and ultimately terminated.
Cruz v. Coach Stores, was a 2000 case involving claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and allegations of hostile work environment, race discrimination, failure to promote and retaliation. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Coach on the plaintiff’s termination and disparate impact claims, but reversed summary judgment on her hostile work environment claim. The court noted that Cruz alleged that she had experienced racial slurs and sexual harassment and that the evidence of a human resource manager’s physically threatening behavior made this a case involving not just “boorish conduct” but “actionable sexual harassment.” Thus, a reasonable jury could decide that Cruz faced a hostile environment because of her sex.
In a 2000 decision in Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Judge Sotomayor reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant employer on Parker’s discriminatory discharge claims. In Parker, a former employee sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Among other things, the Second Circuit held that there was a factual dispute as to whether Parker could perform his job with reasonable accommodation and whether he was fired because of his disability.
In a dissenting opinion in EEOC v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Judge Sotomayor would have vacated the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. In this 2003 decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had alleged that the defendant discriminated against truck drivers who took certain prescription medications and therefore violated the ADA.
Cases Siding With Employers
The most recent employment law case before Judge Sotomayor was Ricci v. DeStefano, a “reverse” race discrimination case, in 2008. There was no written opinion in this case, only a couple of paragraphs in which the panel basically agreed with the lower court’s reasoning. In Ricci, the Second Circuit panel upheld the city of New Haven’s decision to set aside the results of a promotional exam for firefighters. The exam results basically meant that no black or Hispanic firefighters would be eligible for promotions, which would be a disproportionate racial impact. However, refusing to validate the results meant that the white firefighters who scored highest would not be promoted, and they sued. By setting aside the results, the panel ruled that the city was trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII. The United States Supreme Court heard the firefighters’ appeal this past spring.
In a 2004 opinion written by Judge Sotomayor in Williams v. R.H. Donnelley Corp., the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer. Williams involved a Title VII action brought by an African-American former employee who alleged that she was denied promotions and a lateral transfer because of her race and sex. The Second Circuit held that the employer’s failure to transfer Williams to an account executive position at a different location was not adverse employment action. In addition, the court held that there was no discriminatory motive for the employer’s refusal to create a position for Williams.
In the 1999 decision in Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital, Judge Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held that a nurse failed to present a prima facie race discrimination case. The nurse, a disabled black woman, claimed that the hospital did not give her the same accommodations that it gave to white employees. The Second Circuit found that the nurse did not establish that she was similarly situated to the white employees.
Conclusion
In addition to the cases discussed above, there are numerous other employment law cases in which Judge Sotomayor either participated or wrote the opinion. Judge Sotomayor has sided with both employees and employers in a variety of other employment circumstances. If confirmed, she will likely bring an evenhanded and objective view to employment law cases that reach the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
