Articles by Our Attorneys

In May, a local school district gets hit with an Equal Pay Act jury verdict, and federal judges strike down actions from the previous and current presidential administrations as overreaching.  Get the details in this month’s update.

Jury Awards $165K to Female Teachers in Equal Pay Act Case Against Central Bucks School District

A Pennsylvania jury awarded $165,000 in damages to two female teachers, Rebecca Cartee-Haring and Dawn Marinello, who successfully claimed that the Central Bucks School District paid them less than comparable male teachers, violating the Equal Pay Act. The verdict, reached after a second trial, followed a mistrial in 2023 and the decertification of the case as a collective action. Representing the teachers, attorney Edward Mazurek rejected the district’s portrayal of the outcome as a compromise, asserting the jury clearly found long-standing gender-based pay discrimination. The teachers originally sued in 2020, alleging the district inconsistently calculated years of experience based on gender. While Cartee-Haring’s other discrimination claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA were dismissed, her Equal Pay Act claims proceeded. The court required the plaintiffs to compare their pay to specific male teachers rather than a general group, which the district argued differed in responsibilities and qualifications.  The case is Cartee-Haring v. Central Bucks School District, case number 2:20-cv-01995, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Federal Judge Strikes Down EEOC Abortion Accommodation Mandate Under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

A Louisiana federal judge ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) overstepped its authority in implementing parts of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions. In a 40-page decision, Judge David C. Joseph granted summary judgment in favor of Mississippi, Louisiana, and four Catholic organizations, vacating portions of the PWFA final rule that included abortion under “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” He ruled that the EEOC unlawfully assumed congressional power and violated federalism principles by mandating accommodations not explicitly included in the statute. Judge Joseph emphasized that Congress passed the PWFA shortly after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, suggesting lawmakers intentionally omitted abortion-related accommodations. He rejected the EEOC’s argument that the PWFA mirrors Title VII’s protections for abortion. The EEOC’s next steps remain uncertain, as the case was remanded for further agency action. The ruling also follows a similar North Dakota case limiting EEOC enforcement against religious organizations.

Trump Anti-DEI Executive Order targeting Law Firm Struck Down by Federal Judge

A D.C. federal judge struck down former President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting WilmerHale, calling it unconstitutional and retaliatory. Executive Order 14250, issued on March 27, 2025, accused WilmerHale of engaging in discriminatory DEI policies, including the use of race-based targets, which the administration claimed violated civil rights laws. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon granted the law firm summary judgment on most claims, ruling the order violated the First Amendment by punishing WilmerHale for representing clients disfavored by Trump, including former inspectors general, Democratic candidates, and those challenging the 2020 election results. The judge emphasized that the order imposed severe sanctions—including terminating federal contracts and blocking firm employees from entering government buildings—intended to cripple the firm’s business, which derives over 30% of its revenue from clients with federal contracts. He also found violations of due process, separation of powers, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Judge Leon dismissed some claims, such as equal protection and spending clause arguments, but still granted declaratory and permanent injunctive relief. WilmerHale praised the ruling as a defense of constitutional rights. This decision follows similar victories for law firms Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie, who were also targeted by Trump. Other BigLaw firms have either filed suits or reached private deals with the Trump administration, prompting scrutiny from lawmakers.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment.  Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.

April 2025 brought fundamental shifts in employment law brought about by the new presidential administration, and a notable Pennsylvania federal court decision in the area of disability protections relating to medical marijuana. See the latest developments below.

Trump Executive Order to End Use of Disparate Impact in Federal Discrimination Cases

President Donald Trump signed an executive order dismantling the use of “disparate impact” as a basis for federal anti-discrimination enforcement. Disparate impact — a long-standing legal theory under civil rights laws like the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act — allows discrimination claims without proof of intent if a policy disproportionately harms protected groups. Trump’s order rejects this approach, calling it “inconsistent with the Constitution” and harmful to merit-based governance.

The order revokes prior federal policies endorsing disparate impact liability and directs agencies to deprioritize enforcement actions based on it. It also tasks the attorney general with repealing or amending Title VI regulations referencing the theory and instructs agencies like the DOJ, EEOC, HUD, and CFPB to review and potentially roll back existing cases relying on it. Critics warn the order marks a significant rollback of civil rights enforcement, while supporters say it restores focus on individual equality and merit.

Trump DOL Signals Intent to Rescind Biden-Era Independent Contractor Rule

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has indicated in recent court filings that it intends to reconsider and potentially rescind the 2024 independent contractor rule issued during the Biden administration. This move reflects a broader shift in policy following the 2024 election of President Donald Trump, whose administration appears poised to revive the more business-friendly 2021 rule implemented during his first term.

The 2024 rule, which took effect in March, reinstated a six-factor “economic realities” test to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The rule replaced the Trump-era version, which had streamlined classification criteria. Biden’s rule has faced five legal challenges, and while courts have so far upheld it or dismissed suits on procedural grounds, the DOL has begun asking courts to pause ongoing litigation, signaling a regulatory reversal.

In court statements, the DOL emphasized that the rule is not binding law but rather interpretive guidance for enforcement. It also cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, which limits judicial deference to agency rules, further weakening the 2024 rule’s authority. However, for now, the 2024 rule remains in effect, creating legal uncertainty for workers and employers alike looking ahead.

Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana User Can pursue Disability Accommodation claim Under State Discrimination law

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has revived a disability bias claim brought by medical marijuana user and job applicant against a Cleveland-based construction firm. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Colville had previously dismissed the claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), ruling that employers are not required to accommodate marijuana use. However, upon reconsideration, the judge found that the applicant’s allegation—that the company failed to explore alternative accommodations unrelated to cannabis use—warranted further examination.

The applicant had been offered a project engineer role in 2023, but the offer was rescinded after he tested positive for THC and disclosed his certified medical marijuana use for anxiety, depression, and ADHD. While his claim under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act was allowed to proceed, his PHRA claim was initially dismissed. The applicant filed a motion seeking an appeal, which the judge denied, but used the opportunity to reverse his prior ruling.

Judge Colville emphasized that employers must still engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations, even if medical marijuana use is not protected under PHRA. The case will now proceed on these grounds.

The case is Davis v. The Albert M. Higley Co. LLC, case number 2:23-cv-01975, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment. Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels businesses on commercial contract matters.