Articles by Our Attorneys

October’s employment law update covers three key cases. Seventeen states are challenging a
rule defining “gender dysphoria” as an ADA disability, citing excessive costs. The DOJ supports
UPMC employees claiming wage suppression through noncompete agreements. Lastly, Cargill
workers won class action certification in a suit for unpaid COVID-19 screening time, impacting
wage rules for hourly staff. See the updates below.

17 States Sue Biden Administration Over New Rule Defining Gender Dysphoria as a Disability under ADA

Seventeen Republican attorneys general, led by Texas, have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, challenging a new rule from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that defines “gender dysphoria” as a federally recognized disability under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The group points to the fact that Congress expressly excluded “transvestism”, “transsexualism” and “gender identity orders” from these laws’ protections when they were enacted, and argues that HHS exceeded its authority by unilaterally reinterpreting these definitions.  The states further argue that HHS improperly attempts to distinguish “gender dysphoria” from gender identity disorders, despite similarities in symptoms and diagnostic criteria.

In their complaint, the states further assert that the rule imposes an unrealistic and costly mandate, requiring that individuals with disabilities be accommodated in the most integrated settings, which could strain resources. They claim that for smaller states, fulfilling this requirement is financially unsustainable, projecting costs of at least $560 million annually. The rule also bars programs receiving federal funding from making treatment decisions based on stereotypes. The coalition is seeking a court ruling to block the rule’s implementation.

The case is State of Texas et al. v. Becerra et al., case number 5:24-cv-00225, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Dept. of Justice backs Employee Antitrust Class Action against UPMC

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has thrown its support behind a class action lawsuit by University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) employees, who allege that UPMC used noncompete agreements and blacklists to limit their wages and prevent them from leaving the organization. The DOJ filed a statement with the Pennsylvania federal court, urging Judge Susan Paradise Baxter to reject UPMC’s request to dismiss the case. According to the DOJ, UPMC’s dismissal motion sets an unfairly high threshold for the plaintiffs, which could prevent similar labor market cases from reaching discovery.

The DOJ argues that UPMC’s standards would hinder employees from pursuing antitrust claims under the Sherman Act. It says that labor markets should be evaluated similarly to product markets in antitrust law. UPMC contends that the plaintiffs lack direct evidence of monopsony power, but the DOJ countered that such a strict standard isn’t necessary. The lawsuit, initially filed in January, accuses UPMC of using a restrictive system to suppress wages and working conditions. UPMC, however, denies the allegations, stating that its wages and benefits are competitive and supportive of its large workforce across Pennsylvania and neighboring states.

The case is Victoria Ross v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, case number 1:24-cv-00016, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Dept. of Justice backs Employee Antitrust Class Action against UPMC

A Pennsylvania federal judge has certified a class of hourly Cargill workers in a lawsuit claiming the company failed to pay them for time spent undergoing COVID-19 screenings. U.S. District Judge Robert D. Mariani ruled in favor of plaintiffs Jennifer Villa and Susan Davidson, who argued that Cargill’s policy of unpaid COVID-19 checks violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). The plaintiffs allege they were uncompensated not only for the screening time but also for the time spent walking between the building entrance and time clocks.

Cargill argued that the class was overly broad, citing varied COVID-19 screening times and different plant locations, but Judge Mariani found the common issue of compensability under the PMWA sufficient to unite the workers’ claims. He noted that the core question in the lawsuit is whether Cargill’s policies uniformly affected all employees, making class treatment appropriate.

The class action, which includes over 3,000 workers across Cargill’s Pennsylvania facilities, covers employees paid hourly and who worked 40 or more hours during a given week since July 2019. This certification, according to attorney Peter Winebrake, ensures Cargill’s employees have a fair chance to pursue their claims for wage rights.

The case is Villa et al. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., case number 3:22-cv-01321, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle 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 business on commercial contract matters.

In June 2024, a local employment verdict created whistleblower precedent in the field of sports medicine, a federal court narrowed the scope of what might be a hostile work environment, and Pennsylvania steelworkers sought to advance wage and hour rights for pre and post-shift obligations.  See more below.

Jury Awards $5.25 Million to former Team Doctor for Penn State Football Team

A Pennsylvania jury has awarded Dr. Scott Lynch $5.25 million in damages against Penn State Health in a landmark whistleblower case in sports medicine.  Dr. Lynch, formerly the orthopedic physician for Penn State University’s football team, alleged he was terminated for refusing to yield to undue pressure from head coach James Franklin regarding player health decisions.

The jury’s verdict, disclosed recently, detailed compensatory damages of $250,000 for lost wages and $5 million in punitive damages against Penn State Health’s Milton S. Hershey Medical Center and a supervisor accused of retaliatory actions. Dr. Lynch claimed that Coach Franklin had interfered with his decisions about how to treat injured players and when they should return to the field, and that when he reported his concerns to his supervisors at the hospital and the university in 2019, he was removed as the team’s doctor.  Despite assertions by Penn State that the termination was part of a strategic reorganization, the jury upheld Lynch’s claims of retaliation and whistleblower status.  Notably, although the complaint named Coach Franklin, Penn State, and several university officials as defendants, they were not included in the verdict because they had already been dismissed from the case in April, 2020 due to the expiration of the statute of limitations against them.  Penn State Health has publicly stated that the verdict was incorrect, and that it may appeal.

Federal Court holds Single Instance of Slur by Co-Worker Not Enough for Hostile Work Environment

A Wisconsin-based manufacturer, Lakeside Plastics Inc. successfully defended a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which had accused the company of fostering a hostile work environment and retaliating against an employee. The case revolved around Brian Turner, a Black employee who alleged that a white co-worker, Curt Moraski, used racial slurs and created a hostile work atmosphere, leading to Turner’s dismissal.

U.S. District Judge William C. Griesbach granted summary judgment in favor of Lakeside Plastics, determining that the single documented instance of a racial slur at work did not meet the threshold for “severe or pervasive” discrimination. Judge Griesbach acknowledged that Moraski’s behavior was offensive and inappropriate. However, he noted that since Moraski was not Turner’s supervisor and the alleged incident was isolated, it was insufficient to substantiate claims of a hostile work environment.

The court also examined Turner’s termination, which occurred shortly after he reported the incident. The EEOC contended that the firing was retaliatory. However, Judge Griesbach found that Turner was terminated due to performance and attendance issues, not his complaint. Despite the EEOC’s argument that Turner had received high evaluations, evidence showed he had been late or absent on several occasions, which contributed to Lakeside’s decision.

This ruling underscores the legal complexities in proving workplace harassment and retaliation, highlighting that isolated incidents, unless quite severe, may not satisfy the legal criteria for a hostile work environment.

The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lakeside Plastics Inc., case no. 1:22-cv-01149, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Pennsylvania Steelworkers seeking Wages for Pre and Post-Work Duties

A lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Steel Corp. in Pennsylvania state court by James Nadalin, a utility technician at the Edgar Thomson steel plant in Braddock, Pennsylvania, alleging wage violations under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The complaint, submitted to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, claims that U.S. Steel failed to compensate employees for the time spent donning and doffing protective gear, as well as for walking between locker rooms and workspaces.

Nadalin, who often works 40 or more hours a week, argued that he and his colleagues were not paid for these pre- and post-shift activities, despite their necessity for workplace safety. The lawsuit seeks class certification to represent all hourly employees at the Edgar Thomson plant over the past three years, potentially encompassing hundreds of workers.  The plant, part of U.S. Steel’s Mon Valley Works, combines raw materials in furnaces to produce liquid iron, which is then refined into steel.

This legal action mirrors a similar case filed in February against U.S. Steel by an employee at another Pittsburgh-area plant, also alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act for uncompensated pre- and post-shift work.  The case is Nadalin v. U.S. Steel Corp., case number GD-24-006878, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, 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 business on commercial contract matters.