Jeffrey Burke

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.

The Trump administration continues to cause upheaval in the world of employment law in February 2025. See the latest developments below.

EEOC Drops Seven Transgender Discrimination Lawsuits Following Executive Order

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has withdrawn seven lawsuits alleging workplace discrimination against transgender and nonbinary employees. The agency cited a conflict with President Donald Trump’s executive order recognizing only two genders, which was issued on January 20.

The EEOC stated in court filings that continuing the lawsuits may be inconsistent with the order and subsequent guidance from the Office of Personnel Management. As a result, affected workers must seek private legal representation if they wish to continue their cases.

Among the dropped cases was a lawsuit against a Chicago pizza chain, where a Black transgender employee was allegedly harassed and fired after being outed. Another involved a hotel franchisee accused of misgendering and firing a transgender housekeeper. Additional cases included claims of workplace harassment and discrimination at an Illinois hog farm, a fast-food franchise, and other businesses.

While the EEOC’s decision halts its legal action, the impacted employees still have the option to pursue justice through private lawsuits.

NLRB Acting General Counsel Rescinds Prior Policy Memoranda

On February 14, 2025, William Cowen, the Acting General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), rescinded over a dozen policy memoranda issued by his predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo. This action signifies a notable shift in labor policy, as the rescinded memoranda had addressed various issues, including expanded remedies, noncompete agreements, and severance agreements. Cowen’s rescission effectively “wipes the slate clean,” allowing for the establishment of a new labor policy agenda at the NLRB. That being said, the action does not overturn existing NLRB decisions made in recent years.

DOJ Initiates Enforcement Against DEI Initiatives

On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued memoranda signaling the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) intent to enforce President Trump’s Executive Order 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This executive order aims to eliminate certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives deemed inconsistent with merit-based principles. The DOJ’s enforcement efforts reflect a broader governmental shift toward scrutinizing DEI programs within organizations, emphasizing adherence to traditional merit-based criteria in employment practices.

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.

The employment law update is back for the new year! In this edition, President Trump’s Executive Order has an immediate impact in EEO litigation, the Supreme Court gives a win to employers in wage and hour law, and Amazon runs afoul of labor relations law.  Read all about it in the January 2025 update. 

Federal Judges Halt Republican Attorneys General’s Challenges to EEOC Guidance and definition of Gender Dysphoria as Disability following Trump Executive Order 

A Tennessee federal judge rejected a motion by a coalition of Republican state attorneys general to pause U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on workplace harassment. U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. ruled that a recent executive order from President Donald Trump may have rendered the legal challenge moot. 

The states’ lawsuit, filed in May, argued that the EEOC exceeded its authority by requiring employers to accede to workers’ preferred gender identities in pronoun use, bathroom access, and dress codes. However, Trump’s January 20 executive order rescinded the guidance, prompting the judge to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice. 

Judge Atchley emphasized that the legal landscape had changed, necessitating new briefs to reflect the executive order’s implications. He allowed the states to refile their motion within 21 days if they wished to continue pursuing injunctive relief. 

While Trump’s administration moved to roll back LGBTQ protections, Democratic EEOC commissioners opposed the changes and vowed to uphold anti-discrimination mandates.  The case is State of Tennessee et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., case number 3:24-cv-00224, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. 

In a similar series of events, a Texas federal judge granted a stay in a Republican-led lawsuit challenging a Biden-era U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that defines gender dysphoria as a disability. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix paused the case after HHS requested more time to evaluate the impact of a new executive order restricting “gender ideology.” 

The lawsuit, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 16 other Republican attorneys general, claims HHS exceeded its authority under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court ordered both parties to file a joint status report by Feb. 25. 

That 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. 

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Evidence Standard for FLSA Exemptions 

In a unanimous decision sure to please employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) do not require a heightened burden of proof. The case, EMD Sales Inc. et al. v. Carrera et al., centered on whether a “clear and convincing evidence” standard should apply when determining overtime exemption classifications. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that the lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard remains the default. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the Court, rejected arguments advocating for a stricter standard, emphasizing that other critical workplace laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, also adhere to the preponderance standard. The ruling overturned a Fourth Circuit decision that had previously required EMD Sales Inc. to prove the outside sales exemption under the higher standard. 

The Court clarified that departures from the preponderance standard occur only in three instances: when a statute explicitly demands it, when the Constitution requires it, or when Supreme Court precedent mandates it in cases involving severe government action. The decision ensures that wage and hour disputes under the FLSA align with general civil litigation principles, impacting future classification disputes across industries. 

Amazon Violated Workers’ Rights with Restrictive Communication Rules, NLRB Judge Rules 

A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge ruled that Amazon unlawfully restricted workers’ communications on its internal MyVoice platform. Judge Michael Rosas found that Amazon’s policies violated the National Labor Relations Act by discouraging employees from sharing workplace concerns or union-related messages. 

Amazon’s MyVoice rules included provisions that prevented employees from sharing personal details or passing information to unions, which Judge Rosas deemed overly broad and ambiguous. The judge noted that prohibiting employees from sharing their own medical information could stifle discussions about workplace safety. 

Additionally, Amazon was found to have illegally disciplined worker Anthony Mundorff at its Deltona, Florida, facility for writing “OSHA” and union-related phrases on a work cart. The judge ruled that these writings were protected speech under the NLRA and ordered Amazon to remove the disciplinary action from Mundorff’s record. 

As part of the ruling, Amazon must rescind the unlawful MyVoice rules and post notices nationwide informing employees of their rights. The decision reinforces workers’ rights to engage in protected workplace advocacy without fear of retaliation, setting a significant precedent for labor relations in the tech and e-commerce industry. 

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. 

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.