Articles by Our Attorneys

I have been very successful recently in having tax sales completely overturned and the property given back to my clients.

In the first case, the hearing started off with the Judge yelling at my clients because they had not updated their address with the tax assessment office so when the tax claim bureau tried to serve the notice of tax sale on them they never received it. We won that case on a technicality which requires the tax claim bureau to provide proof that they sent the notice of tax sale to the owner(s) by first class mail after the certified mail was returned unclaimed. The solicitor for the tax claim bureau told me after the case that he didn’t even know that was a requirement. The Judge completely changed her tune after I gave her a trial memo which showed that the court was required to overturn the tax sale if the tax claim bureau did not have proof of mailing by first class mail which was the case in this matter. In addition, we were able to have the Judge order the tenant to vacate the property and my client was only required to pay her $4,500.00 for her expenses in moving in and moving out.

In another case, while our client was in prison, the tax claim bureau sold his property at tax sale and never gave him any notice. Even though the tax claim bureau obtained a court order allowing them to sell certain owners’ property without having them personally served, we had the sale overturned on the grounds that the tax claim bureau did not do a reasonable search to find our client. All the tax claim bureau had to do was go on the judicial website and put in my client’s name and it would show what prison he was in. It is kind of like one hand of the government takes someone and locks them up and while he is there the other hand of the government sells his property without giving him notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Judge found that the tax claim bureau did not engage in reasonable notification efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the property owner. He found that without personal service of the notice of tax sale or the establishment of good cause to waive personal service, the tax 4590599v1 000001.00019 sale of the property was void and would be set aside. We made new law in the case. We also sued the people who bought our client’s property at tax sale while he was in prison and obtained a default judgment against them because while he was in prison they went in and took every item of personal property that he had in the house and disposed of the vast majority of it without providing an accounting and then rented his property to a third party. They had no right to do that especially since they never secured a deed to our client’s property.

The most important thing to remember is to hire counsel experienced in this area of the law as soon as you learn of the tax sale. The sooner you act, the better your chances are to be successful.

Contact Michael G. Louis at [email protected] or via phone at (610) 840-0228.

In July 2022, the EEOC provided a significant update on COVID-19 workplace policy, and America’s two largest retailers fell under scrutiny for their workplace practices, with a Philadelphia-based employee class action against Walmart, and nationwide investigation into Amazon fulfillment centers.  Find out more in the employment law update below.

EEOC Issues Guidance on Mandatory COVID-19 Workplace Testing

In guidance issued earlier this month, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) indicated that employers will now need to specifically assess pandemic and workplace circumstances in order to justify mandatory COVID-19 testing of employees.  In the absence of this recent guidance, worksite COVID-19 testing was permitted without any specific justification or assessment on the part of the employer.

In short, the EEOC stated that employers must show that COVID-19 testing is job-related and consistent with business necessity, and provided several potential factors to consider when making an assessment, including:

• The current levels of COVID-19 community transmission;
• The vaccination status of employees;
• The degree of breakthrough infections of fully vaccinated employees;
• The transmissibility of current variants;
• The potential severity of illness from current variants;
• The level of contacts employees may have with others during the course of their work;
• The potential impact upon the employer’s operations if an infected employee enters the workplace.

Moving forward, employers should give consideration to (and consider documenting) how these new guidelines will be factored into their workplace COVID-19 policies.

Lawsuit filed against Walmart in Philadelphia alleges violations of the City’s Fair Workweek Law

According to a proposed class action filed in Pennsylvania state court, Walmart workers in Philadelphia claim the company violated the local “Fair Workweek Law” by failing to provide them with work schedules 10 to 14 days in advance or give them “predictability pay” when their schedules were changed within that window.  The lawsuit asserts claims for five different types of violations of the Fair Workweek Law, and noted that each instance of a violation could result in statutory damages ranging from $25 to $1,000 per pay period.

In Philadelphia, the Fair Workweek Law provides predictable scheduling to certain service, hospitality, and retail workers.  It requires “Covered Employers” to:

• post and provide a written 10-day advance notice of work schedules;
• provide predictability pay for all employer initiated changes to the posted schedule;
• allow employees to refuse to work additional hours not included in the posted schedule;
• offer existing employees the right to additional work shifts before hiring new employees; and,
• schedule nine hours of rest between certain shifts unless the employee provides a written consent and payment of $40.

“Covered Employers” under the law are retail, hospitality, or food services establishments that employ 250 or more employees including all full-time, part-time, and temporary workers and have 30 or more locations worldwide. This includes franchises and chains and then temporary employees hired through an agency.

The case is Washington et al. v. Walmart, case number 220701449, in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Amazon Warehouses under Investigation by OSHA for Safety Hazards

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), in conjunction with New York federal prosecutors, inspected Amazon warehouses this month in New York City, Chicago and Orlando, Florida, after investigators received complaints about the working conditions.  The Southern District of New York’s civil division is investigating the potentially hazardous working conditions at warehouses across the country as well as whether Amazon committed fraud by hiding worker injuries from OSHA.  The investigation follows a slew of serious incidents and allegations relating to workplace safety, including: news that an employee died at one of Amazon’s fulfillment centers in New Jersey during the company’s Prime Day event; a lawsuit concerning another employee being killed in a fulfillment center collapse in Illinois; and a recent report from the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health that included Amazon on a “dirty dozen” list of businesses that have committed “egregious” safety violations that endangered their workers.  Recent efforts to unionize a facility in Alabama failed, where workers claim that the pace of work that the company expects is untenable and dangerous.  Amazon’s commented publicly in response to the investigation that it will cooperate with the investigation and believes the investigation “will ultimately show that these concerns are unfounded.”

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 business on commercial contract matters.

Get ready to sort through your digital receipts. Starting with this 2022 tax year, Third-Party Settlement Organizations (TPSOs) such as Venmo, Cash App, and PayPal are required to report payment of commercial transactions that total $600 or more per year to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and, therefore, will be sending qualifying users a Form 1099-K.

This new rule is among the 243 pages of The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, more aptly known as the $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package signed by President Biden into law on March 11, 2021.

Previously, apps like Venmo and Cash App were only required to report to the IRS when a user had both (i) over 200 commercial transactions and (ii) gross payments in excess of $20,000. Under the new rule, TPSOs are now required to report to the IRS payments amounting to more than $600 in total during the course of the year regardless of the number of transactions. Ultimately, anyone whoreceives payment(s) of $600 or more from goods or services this year will receive a Form 1099-K. The end result is that many more Americans will be receiving a Form 1099-K this tax year, many of whom will be receiving one for the first time. Some tax lobbyists estimate the number of Americans receiving a 1099-K this year could be as high as 20 million.

Form 1099-K is simply an informational form, listing both taxable and nontaxable income. All taxable income must be listed on one’s income tax return. Thus, it is essential, now more so than ever, to keep accurate and detailed records of your digital expenses and payments. Consider the following example: Five years ago you bought a coffee table for $200. A few years have passed and you sold it this year for $100; you were paid via Venmo. You receive a 1099-K for this tax year because your aggregate Venmo receipts total over $600. Is that $100 subject to income tax? Without a receipt showing the coffee table’s original $200 sales price and, thus, proof that you sold it for a $100 loss, it very well could be. As you can see, the practical implications are endless.

If all of this sounds unsettling to you, there are two pieces of good news:

(1) The rule only applies to commercial goods or services, not personal charges.

(2) This is not a new tax, but rather a new reporting requirement. The IRS is not taxing users on individual transactions.

The first point above bears repeating. The IRS is not taxing you on your payment of this month’s rent to your roommate or you being paid by your brother for a shared Christmas gift. Those are personal, and this new rule only applies to commercial goods or services. However, this only further necessitates the importance of keeping accurate records. TPSOs will send you a Form 1099-K if you trigger this new $600 threshold without necessarily differentiating which payments are personal and which are commercial. Fortunately, Venmo has a feature that allows users to tag a payment as being for “goods and services”. Although this feature may help users stay organized going forward, do not be surprised if you, like millions of other Americans, receive a Form 1099-K in the mail this year.

Matthew C. Cooper is an attorney at MacElree Harvey specializing in business and corporate law. He counsels businesses of various sizes and industries through all stages of the business life cycle, including representing management and boards of directors by helping them stay compliant with the ever-changing landscape of corporate law. Matthew frequently represents businesses in private financings and mergers and acquisitions, and is a trusted adviser to lenders and borrowers in commercial lending transactions. If you have any corporate or business law needs, please contact Matthew C. Cooper at (610) 840-0279 or [email protected].

Whether it be the price of avocados, gasoline, or housing prices and inflation are going up and causing many Americans to buckle down and create savings wherever they can. Then, as many custodial parents have also encountered, the curve ball comes: another Petition to Modify Custody. So much for saving money, right?

When we hear and read headlines of celebrities getting attorney fees awards in their highly publicized cases, surely a parent, who is only doing what’s right and best for Little Johnny or Janey should have their fees paid by the other side too, right? Wrong.

A discussion I have with many clients, and not just those involved in custody disputes, flows from the question: Will they have to pay my legal fees?

Fortunately, or unfortunately (depending on your perspective) there are limited instances where a party is able to recover legal fees. In the context of Child Custody Litigation, the wise and noble Pennsylvania Legislature saw fit to provide us with statutory authorization to seek fees in child custody actions.

Pursuant to Section 5339 of the Child Custody Act, “a court may award reasonable interim or final counsel fees, costs, and expenses to a party if the court finds that the conduct of another party was obdurate, vexatious, repetitive, or in bad faith.”

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5339

So how often does this actually happen? When can a client expect to get counsel fees? It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Some matters are clear cut, others are anything but; however, I’ve seen awards in instances of both.

To find out if you would be eligible for counsel fees in your child custody, divorce, or other domestic relations related matter, contact Attorney Michael Rovito today to schedule a consultation.

Decisions from across the country in May 2022 contained some interesting, employer-friendly rulings in developing areas of law, including labor relations via Twitter, COVID-19 ‘disability’, and trans-gender benefits issues.  Check out the details below.

3rd Cir. Reverses National Labor Relations Board, Finds Federalist Boss’ Tweet Was Joke

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) decision finding the publisher of online news magazine The Federalist, Ben Domenech, violated labor law by tweeting that he would send workers “to the salt mine” if they sought to unionize, finding the tweet was a joke, not a threat.  The ruling resolves FDRLST Media’s challenge to the NLRB’s 2020 ruling that the tweet was an “obvious threat” barred by the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”).  Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” of the NLRA, which includes threatening employees with adverse consequences, such as closing the workplace, loss of benefits, or more onerous working conditions, if they support a union, engage in union activity, or select a union to represent them.

The Third Circuit panel concluded that the NLRB’s threat finding glossed over the context of the tweet, observing it evoked the farcical image of a “tiny media company” of 6 employees toiling “in dimly-lit mineshafts alongside salt deposits.”  Domenech touted the win, writing that he’s “pleased with the outcome, and happy that the humorless trolls and their army of bureaucrats lost.”

California Federal Court rejects Claim by Hertz Employee that Mild COVID Was Disability

Hertz defeated an employment discrimination lawsuit by a former employee who was fired after she came to work feeling sick while waiting for COVID-19 test results, after a California federal judge Monday found that the employee – who contracted a mild case of the virus – can’t be considered disabled under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).

Addressing a question of first impression, the District Court in a 19-page order granted Hertz’s motion for summary judgment, finding that mild COVID-19 symptoms don’t qualify as a disability under the FEHA.  The FEHA defines a ‘disability’ as a condition that affects one or more body systems and limits a major life activity, but does not include a condition that is mild or doesn’t make major life activities more difficult.  In that respect, it contains a similar definition of disability as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  In the Order, the Court wrote: “When it presents with temporary symptoms akin to the common cold or seasonal flu, COVID-19 will fall outside the FEHA definition of ailments considered a disability … Because the symptoms of her infection were mild with little or no residual effects, Roman’s COVID-19 infection is excluded from FEHA’s definition of disability.”

While the case addressed California law, it may provide guidance for similar claims under the ADA and other states’ disability discrimination laws.  The case is Michelle Roman v. Hertz Local Edition Corp. et al., case number 3:20-cv-02462, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Judge Says Christian Cos. Don’t Have To Cover Gender Transition Care

A North Dakota federal judge temporarily barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services from requiring Christian employers and health care providers to cover gender transition surgery.  The court granted the Christian Employers Alliance’s (“CEA”) motion for a preliminary injunction in an order that prevents the EEOC and HHS from requiring the business group’s members to provide health coverage for gender transition services until the court considers the merits of the case.  The CEA sued the government in October, claiming that by requiring trans health coverage, the EEOC and HHS were misinterpreting Title VII and the Affordable Care Act in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Court enjoined the EEOC from interpreting or enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the CEA in a way that would require the business group’s present or future members to provide insurance coverage for gender transition services. He also enjoined the EEOC from applying or enforcing those regulations against insurers and third-party administrators of CEA members.  The Court also enjoined the HHS from interpreting or enforcing Section 1557 of the ACA and any regulations in a way that would require future or present CEA members to provide, offer, perform, facilitate or refer for gender transition services, and from enforcing any regulations restricting or compelling member speech on gender identity issues.

The CEA joins several other religious groups that have obtained court orders blocking federal agency requirements on trans health care coverage.

The case is Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., case number 1:21-cv-00195, in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.

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 business on commercial contract matters.