23rd Annual PBI Employment Law Institute, Philadelphia, 4/27/17-4/28/17

Lisa Matukaitis will serve as faculty for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s 23rd Annual Employment Law Institute being held in Philadelphia on April 27 and 28, 2017.  Joining two other employment attorneys, the panel will speak on:

Unique Employment Issues in Litigating Against Public Employers

Mention an employment claim against a public entity and many employment law practitioners cringe.  Suing municipalities, school districts, and governmental entities can bring added layers of difficulty, including 11th Amendment immunity defenses, limitations on damages, and exceptions embedded in laws and regulations.  At the same time, employees of governmental entities often enjoy higher levels of rights than do private sector employees.  Our balanced panel will demystify these issues so you can effectively represent your clients in the pursuit or defense of employment-based claims against federal, state, local municipalities, and school districts.

Register for the course at www.pbi.org

http://catalog.pbi.org/store/seminar/seminar.php?seminar=78220

Price v. Carroll Township Pennsylvania

Former Carroll Township Pennsylvania Manager files federal lawsuit, alleging her civil rights were violated and she was discriminated against. Price v. Carroll Township Pennsylvania, Nancy Livingston, Paul Walters, and Mark McCurdy, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 1:11-cv-01279 (Judge Jones). Click here

Gausman v. Pennsylvania State Police

PA Female Trooper files federal Civil Rights lawsuit, alleging she was subject to a court martial, while the PSP only gives a male Trooper a written warning. Gausman v. Pennsylvania State Police et al., U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 4:10-cv-002359 (Judge Jones). Click here

Reaves v. Pennsylvania State Police

Matukaitis Law defeats Pennsylvania State Police’s summary judgment motion on behalf of black Probationary Trooper asserting Title VII retaliation claim. Case scheduled for trial in federal court in March 2013. Federal court rules that a jury could reasonably find that trooper made an implicit complaint of discrimination based on the evidence that he made numerous separate phone calls to the EEO, the PSP EEO Director knew that plaintiff was black, and the plaintiff complained of “discrimination” and compared himself to other white troopers in a letter to his Lieutenant who knew that he was the only black trooper at his station… A jury could reasonably find that he engaged in protected activity under Title VII. Reaves v. Pennsylvania State Police, Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Beamer v. Herman Chiropractic Center, Inc., Nachas, Inc., Jason Herman, Individually, and Larry Herman, Individually

Matukaitis Law scores another victory for pregnant women in Pennsylvania by defeating employers’ motion for summary judgment on behalf a female chiropractor who alleges she was fired because of her pregnancy and replaced by a male. Court rules female chiropractor’s Title VII sex and pregnancy discrimination claims, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act sex and pregnancy discrimination claims, and breach of contract claims may go to a jury trial. Beamer v. Herman Chiropractic Center, Inc., Nachas, Inc., Jason Herman, Individually, and Larry Herman, Individually, United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 1:09-cv-02560 (Judge Calwell) (September 16, 2011).Click here