Posts Tagged ‘United States’

PRESS RELEASE
6-10-09

SCHOTT NORTH AMERICA, INC. TO PAY $1.45 MILLION TO SETTLE EEOC SEX BIAS SUIT

Company Laid Off Class of Women Workers Based on Gender, Federal Agency Said

SCRANTON, PA. — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced a major settlement of a sex discrimination lawsuit for $1,450,000 and significant equitable relief against Schott North America, a multinational developer and manufacturer of special glass and specialty materials, components and systems, based in Elmsford, N.Y.

The EEOC charged that Schott laid off women because of their sex after a company reorganization in October 2004 of its specialty glass plant in Duryea, Pa. Prior to the reorganization, glass production at the plant was generally divided into two parts, the “hot end” and the “cold end”; 95.3% of the hot-end workers were male and 76.6% of the cold-end workers were female.

As part of the reorganization, the company created a new position of “melting line operator” and used a “skills matrix” to determine who would obtain these new positions. The glass company laid off employees whom it did not select for the melting line operator position. In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that the skills matrix system benefited male employees, did not accurately measure the skills truly needed to perform the melting line operator job and had an adverse impact on female applicants – who were selected for layoff at a significantly higher rate than male employees. The EEOC contended that six plaintiff intervenors and five class members were not selected for melting line operator positions and were laid off because of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said, “This significant settlement demonstrates the EEOC’s commitment to securing meaningful relief for victims of systemic sex discrimination.”

In addition to the $1.45 million in monetary relief, the three-year consent decree provides substantial equitable relief, including: injunctive relief enjoining Schott from engaging in unlawful discrimination under Title VII or retaliation; annual anti-discrimination training of all supervisors and managers at the Duryea, Pa. facility; and the posting of a notice about the settlement.

“Companies must make hiring and layoff decisions based on the individual’s qualifications and abilities, and not because of gender,” said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Marie M. Tomasso, who oversaw the agency’s administrative investigation which preceded the litigation. “The EEOC will take action if a company reorganization has an adverse impact on women.”

The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 06-CV-1246) in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement out of court. Schott did not admit liability in the consent decree, which is pending judicial approval. Sean P. McDonough, of the Dougherty, Leventhal & Price law firm, and Pete Winebrake, of The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC, represented plaintiff intervenors in their private claims against Schott.

Judith O’Boyle, the supervisory trial attorney responsible for handling the litigation, noted, “We are pleased that the parties were able to resolve this matter and that Schott agreed to a variety of remedial measures designed to prevent problems in the future.”

Karen McDonough investigated the charges of discrimination filed with the agency.

According to its web site, http://www.us.schott.com/, “SCHOTT Corporation is the North American headquarters and holding company for the SCHOTT Group. With 16 divisions and subsidiaries in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, SCHOTT Corporation employs approximately 2,500 people for the manufacture and distribution of special glass and glass-related systems. The SCHOTT Group employs 17,300 people worldwide and has sales of approximately $3 billion.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at http://www.eeoc.gov/

Paul T. Oven

A steep drop-off along a road’s edge is a catastrophe waiting to happen. If a client has been injured in a drop-off-related accident, start strong with a thorough investigation of its cause.

In 2004, Barbara Jones turned out of her driveway onto a state highway in rural northeastern Pennsylvania. As she was negotiating a gradual left turn in the road, the passenger-side tires of her car drifted just over the white fog line and dropped six inches onto the exposed dirt shoulder.

This road had been repaved more than three months earlier, but the shoulder had not yet been built up and replaced. And the contractor had failed to place barricades or warning signs along that stretch of roadway.

Traveling at the posted 45 mph speed limit, the car’s right tires were on the shoulder for only 1.5 seconds before Barbara oversteered the vehicle back onto the road, crossed over it, and struck two trees on the opposite side, causing her to nearly eject from her car’s rear window. She suffered severe injuries that left her with only partial motor control below the C5 vertebra and 100 percent pain perception. My colleagues and I filed suit against the pavement contractor and, after extensive discovery, recovered damages, with the majority of the settlement going to Barbara’s life care plan.

Travelers on rural roadways and in construction zones are often “riding the razor’s edge,” with dangerous drop-offs hidden just inches away. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), an estimated 11,000 people suffer injuries and about 160 die annually in crashes related to unsafe pavement edges.1

Although relatively rare, pavement drop-off crashes tend to be more severe than other accidents.2 They are more likely than others on similar roadways to result in serious injuries and are two to three times more likely to be fatal, primarily because the vehicle often rolls over, hits a roadside object, or crashes into an oncoming vehicle when the driver attempts to steer the car back onto the road.3

Drop-offs can be especially severe where pavement recently has been laid and material has not also been added to the shoulder surface, or when a shoulder has washed away because of weather or has been worn down by traffic. And while drop-off accidents can occur on any road, they are more likely to happen on undivided rural highways where the speed limits are fairly high (typically between 45 and 70 mph) and drivers encounter oncoming traffic just a double yellow line away, many twists and turns, and hazards like driveways, side streets, mailboxes, and school bus stops.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has said that “well-designed and properly maintained shoulders are needed on rural highways with appreciable volume of traffic.”4 Effectively designed shoulders provide space necessary “for evasive maneuvers to avoid potential crashes or reduce their severity” and “for pedestrian and bicycle use, for bus stops, for occasional encroachment of vehicles, for mail delivery vehicles, and for detouring of traffic during construction.”5
When encountering a sudden drop-off, the typical motorist will try to reenter the travel lane rather than make other driving maneuvers. In response to the sudden jolt of having one or two tires (almost always on the passenger side) leave the roadway, the driver’s first reaction is to oversteer to the left to get the vehicle back into the travel lane.

Crash statistics show that most drop-off accidents involve this oversteer reaction. The average reaction time is about 1.5 seconds. Quite literally in the blink of an eye, the vehicle will be 90 feet down the roadway before the driver begins to brake or tries to steer the vehicle back onto the road—and this is at 45 mph.
When the driver oversteers, the inside of the passenger tires “scrub” against the higher pavement drop-off and the driver can feel as though he or she is stuck in a rut, leading to additional panicked oversteering. Then, when the car reenters the roadway, the front tires are turned at an unmanageable angle, and the vehicle either slingshots across the road or rolls over.

A drop-off only a few inches deep can have this potentially deadly effect. Research has indicated that drop-offs of two inches or less can cause loss of control.6 On highways where the speed limit is 55 mph or more, a drop-off should be no more than one inch deep.7

Investigating the crash
These cases are not for the faint of heart, but they can be won. The key is getting involved immediately after the accident and accumulating as much information as possible before the paving companies or state departments of trans portation (DOTs) “cover their tracks” by changing the road’s condition from what it was at the time of the crash.

Identify the cause of the drop-off. It’s not enough to simply prove the drop-off existed. The true battle in these cases is usually waged over the issue of causation. Not only must you prove causation between the drop-off and the resulting accident; first, you must identify the drop-off condition’s cause.

Many alternative explanations for the condition are possible—for example, trucks and tractor-trailers often run wheels over the road edges, particularly on the inside of highway curves; school bus and delivery drop-off and pickup points are susceptible to shoulder erosion; a single rainstorm can wear away significant amounts of loose materials near a road’s edge.

You must identify the source of the problem—and rule out all other potential sources—before you identify the parties to investigate for culpability.

If the road was recently paved, preserve the construction site. While you can’t shut down a roadway or a construction project, you can take steps to preserve the condition of the scene and the vehicle. Signage may still be in place, or markings from the pavement crew or your state’s DOT may still be visible.

Take photographs of the construction zone and speed limit or warning signs approaching the scene from both sides. The paving company may have retained photos of the site pursuant to management guidelines or company policy.

Look at the place where the vehicle left the road to see if the undercarriage struck and gouged the edge. Such marks can indicate that the paving company or DOT did not ensure that surfaces abutting the new road were raised to a higher level after paving was completed. The same holds true for examining a re-entry gouge mark or scrape. Both marks may prove invaluable for experts’ calculations on speed and apparent loss of control. Examine the damaged side of the drop-off to see if there is evidence that tires scraped against it. Photograph and measure everything.

If you aren’t fortunate enough to get involved in the case soon after the accident, do some digging. Layers of new pavement, much like layers of rock cut away for highway construction, are easily distinguishable. By chipping away at the shoulder and exposing the old and new surfaces, you’ll be able to see how much pavement was added in a given location.

You may be able to easily establish key points regarding the depth of the drop-off by simply measuring and photographing the exposed layers. You may be fortunate enough to show that the area was overpaved, thereby heightening the drop-off. You may also find out that the work in that location didn’t conform to the contract specifications for pavement amounts on a particular curve, which usually vary from pavement placed on straightaway sections.

Time is of the essence, but it is often obvious where the most recent level of pavement was added and how much material was placed on top of the old shoulder. You may be able to reconstruct the conditions that existed at the time of the accident.

Talk to people. I think it’s safe to say that the traveling public generally perceives roadway maintenance work as slow, ineffective, and badly managed. Use this to your advantage.

Local residents and emergency personnel who responded to the crash will often be happy to provide information about traffic or construction delays, inadequate signage, other accidents in the area, near-miss cases, and personal tales of undercarriage damage to their vehicles from “bottoming out” when entering driveways adjacent to the road. This type of evidence is invaluable in establishing that your client’s accident was not an isolated incident or due to a moment’s inattentiveness.

Talk to people who live near the scene of the construction project. You’ll often find that complaints were registered not only with the pavement company but also with government officials. Since these projects may be funded by local and state governments, agency meeting minutes can provide a lot of information about timetables and other project requirements and about notice of potentially dangerous road conditions.

Read up. Do your best to quickly identify the paving company and obtain copies of applicable contracts and regulations. You will probably find multiple discrepancies between the contracts and regulations and the conditions of the road, both at the accident site and elsewhere in the construction zone.
The FHA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices details the federal government’s policy on signs, signals, and markings in work areas. Most states have codified the manual or modeled their own rules and regulations for work-zone traffic control on it, and the regulations are usually quoted in government contracts with private paving companies. Many contracts have detailed schematics depicting which signs belong in various positions. The more specific the requirements and specifications, arguably the higher the standard to which defendants will be held in a civil setting.

Often, specific sections of these regulations deal exclusively with drop-offs and assign tasks to pavement construction crews. For instance, in Pennsylvania, if a pavement company creates a road with a four-inch drop-off, it is obligated to install “low-shoulder” signs and place channeling devices, such as cones or barrels, every 90 feet along the edge of the road.

Regulations or contracts may limit the time that may elapse between the laying of the pavement and the placement of the backup shoulder material. For example, in one of my firm’s cases, Pennsylvania contractually obligated its paving company, our defendant, to begin placing shoulder material no more than seven calendar days after the roadway resurfacing was completed. Also, the company could not leave any vertical drop-off greater than three inches in height unprotected, even overnight.

Sometimes, wedging materials are contractually required to be placed along a vertical drop-off face to reduce the angle of the drop and decrease the likelihood that a driver whose car leaves the road will lose control and oversteer to recover.

AASHTO publishes specifications, test protocols, and guidelines that are used throughout the United States. Its voting membership consists of each state’s department of transportation, and, while it is not a government body, AASHTO possesses quasi-governmental powers, as the organizations that supply its members customarily obey most AASHTO decisions.

The association’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, often called the Green Book, covers the functional design of roads and highways, including curve layouts. It deals specifically with drop-offs and shoulders. Be certain to use the Green Book in researching contracts and in cross-examining the DOT and paving representatives on AASHTO regulation compliance.
It would be hard for a witness to disagree with AASHTO that “a definite hazard is associated with [a road shoulder’s] use when driven upon it at any appreciable speed. Skidding out of control or turning over are not uncommon accidents as a result of loose gravel, sandy, muddy, soft, or spongy shoulders.”8 It is axiomatic that the same reasoning holds true for improperly constructed, or missing, shoulders.

The FHA’s Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects offers guidance on drop-offs in work zones and indicates that when a shoulder drop-off exceeds two inches, a “low shoulder” warning sign should be placed during construction.9

A study by the (AAA) American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety provides not only an incredibly comprehensive analysis of crash statistics and driver response studies, but also a state-by-state compilation of state and provincial guidelines for design considerations, drop-off measurement tolerances, and maintenance obligations.10

Look for a motive. Contract language or specifications can reveal a monetary motive for leaving drop-offs unprotected.
Many contracts spell out performance deadlines or goals whereby the contractor is paid incrementally. The paving company bids on and is paid for each unit of paving (often measured in tons of asphalt) that the contractor completes.
You likely won’t find deadlines for when roadways must be shouldered. This allows companies to run their paving crews well ahead of their lining and shouldering crews, as it is imperative that the pavers keep the pavement hot and the machines running for as long as they can on any given stretch of roadway. A paving crew would prefer to pave continuously; thus, it’s cost-effective for a company to maintain paving activities rather than paving a section at a time before shutting down the paving process to return later to that same section.

Contractors are usually paid a lump sum to protect their work zones with signs, channeling devices, and barriers. The labor required to set up, maintain, and monitor proper signage and barriers entails significant costs. Break down how the contractors are paid and where they can cut costs, thereby increasing profits. Too often, signs and other safety devices are the first casualties.
Preserve the vehicle. Pictures of damage to the vehicle’s body aren’t enough. When possible, preserve the vehicle. Being sensitive to costs and potential case value, you should consider purchasing the vehicle for salvage value, even if it has been totaled, so as to preserve the absolutely critical evidence the tires and undercarriage may contain.
Likewise, doing only a cursory investigation or simply taking photos may open your case and expert to insurmountable cross on spoliation-of-evidence issues if the other side is unable to verify your and your expert’s conclusions on scrubbing and undercarriage damage.
The typical drop-off accident causes damage to the vehicle’s undercarriage and will leave scrubbing marks on the inside of the passenger-side wheels. If you can’t document damage to the undercarriage or tires, expect to face defense claims that the accident was caused by driver inattentiveness or steering error.
Anticipating defenses
The typical defense goes something like this: “It’s not our company’s fault that your client couldn’t keep her vehicle on the roadway.”
This defense often can be either dispelled or eliminated before your client has to testify. Remember, these cases happen very quickly, in the blink of an eye. Barbara, for example, traveled 92 feet (over 30 yards) in only 1.5 seconds—the average driver’s reaction time.
Again, considering that a driver’s normal and anticipated reaction is to steer back onto the road, drop-off cases place a higher premium on the anticipated steering than on braking or bringing the vehicle to a stop. Studies focus on the surprise associated with the driver finding himself or herself dealing with an error in judgment in steering the vehicle. This scenario is different from a braking situation, where the driver finds an unidentified or unexpected object in his or her lane of travel or needs to stop to avoid a collision.
By its very nature, an error in steering led the driver into the dangerous situation, and the anticipated “panic” reaction is to counter a poor steering error right or left with one in the opposite direction. This must be the focus of your analysis, as your client will be “forgiven,” to a certain degree, for not slamming on the brakes as soon as the vehicle’s tires hit the shoulder.
Because government agencies usually are responsible for constructing and maintaining roads, state notice requirements often arise as a defense. Most states have strict statutory requirements for placing state officials on notice of an accident, and state laws may require the plaintiff to prove that the government agency had received prior notice, often in writing, of the alleged dangerous or defective condition—the drop-off.

Local board of supervisors meeting minutes may show that government officials regularly received complaints from residents and travelers about dangerous roadway conditions in the weeks and months leading up to your client’s accident. Most DOTs have Web sites established for this type of communication, so search their databases.
Also, be wary of recreational-use statutes. Drop-off conditions often exist in rural areas identified as state game lands and state parks, affording government defendants immunity from liability for negligence.
Other common defenses include claims that that your client was not wearing a seat belt or that the vehicle was being driven at an excessive speed or was not crashworthy.
State statutes may be helpful in countering the claim that your client was not wearing a seat belt. Some states prohibit defendants in cases like these from introducing evidence showing a lack of seat belt use. If you’re not in a jurisdiction that prohibits use of a seat belt defense, you’re going to find yourself in the unenviable position of hiring biomechanical and safety engineers to offer the requisite testimony as to how your client’s injuries would have occurred even in the face of alleged lack of seat belt use (or excessive speed or an “uncrashworthy” vehicle).
Take the offensive against the defendants on these arguments, noting that “but for” the drop-off itself, the accident wouldn’t have happened and you’d not be discussing these tangential issues on injury causation or enhancement of your client’s injuries.
These defenses also return you to the essential practice point concerning preservation of the vehicle itself. Without it, defense experts must use their imagination regarding the vehicle’s structural integrity—or lack thereof—which opens up your own expert to a potentially disasterous cross-examination of endless “what ifs?” Top-notch accident reconstruction, biomechanical, and safety engineering experts can only go so far with their expertise, and nothing compares with access to the vehicle and the accident scene data.
The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study delves into the multiple components that contribute to accidents involving drop-offs.11 The studies cited there address issues such as the differences in the make and model of the car involved (SUVs faring better than small passenger cars), the safety of rounded edges over straight vertical edges, and the likelihood that lower speeds make reentry and accident avoidance more possible.
While the universally accepted limit for a dangerous drop-off is three inches, individual states’ requirement of signage or protection for drop-offs significantly less than three inches speaks volumes:

It acknowledges the danger of this condition at any depth, left for any period of time.

Pursuing a drop-off case can be extremely challenging, but persistence and perseverance in the initial stages of the case will help you—and your client—obtain a just and reasonable result.
From the work that my partners and I put into Barbara’s case—including crawling under her wrecked vehicle, which we had purchased and stored; chipping away frozen dirt and pavement to uncover the depth of the new pavement while dodging traffic; and filing seemingly endless requests for information from the state DOT—I can say that a case becomes clear as a result of establishing the burden of proof and anticipating and countering the paving company’s defenses. When pursuing a drop-off case, recognize that there are far too many variables and potential pitfalls to not spend the time, effort, and resources to ensure that you have all you need to pursue—and prove—your case.
Paul T. Oven is a partner with Dougherty, Leventhal & Price in Moosic, Pennsylvania.
Notes:

1. Steve Moler, The Low-Cost Dropoff Solution, 71 Pub. Roads 3 (Sept./Oct. 2007), www.tfhrc. gov/pubrds/07sep/01.htm.
2. Shauna Hallmark et al., Safety Impacts of Pavement Edge Drop-Offs 89 (prepared for AAA Found. for Traffic Safety 2006), www.aaafoundation.org/ pdf/pedo_report.pdf.
3. Moler, supra n. 1, at 3.
4. Am. Assn. State Hwy. & Transp. Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2002).
5. Id.
6. John C. Glennon, Effect of Pavement/Shoulder Drop-Offs on Highway Safety: A Synthesis of Prior Research (Transp. Research Bd. 1987).
7. Jerry L. Graham & John C. Glennon, Fed. Hwy. Admin., Work Zone Design Considerations for Truck Operations and Pavement/Shoulder Drop-Offs (1984).
8. Am. Assn. State Hwy. & Transp. Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways (1965).
9. Moler, supra n. 1.
10. Hallmark et al., supra n. 2.
11. Id.

Reprinted with permission of TRIAL (February 2009).
Copyright American Association for Justice, formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA®)

Carlos was in America on a work visa. Carlos worked during the summer for the Waterproof Roofing Company. Carlos would send two-thirds of his pay back to his wife in Mexico every payday. Carlos was a very hard worker but as fate would have it, Carlos fell from a roof he was working on as a result of a freak accident causing his death.

Question: Is Carlos’ wife in Mexico entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits as a result of Carlos’ untimely death?

Answer: Alien widow’s, children and parents, not residents of the United States, are entitled to compensation but only to the amount of 50% of the compensation which would have been provided if they were residents of the United States. Since Mexico does provide compensation benefits for residents of the United States, this would hold true. If Mexico or any foreign country did not provide for this type of protection, then the injured worker’s relatives would have no benefits forthcoming.

If it was Carlos’ wife that was fatally injured and Carlos was living in Mexico, then Carlos would not be entitled to any benefits as alien widowers, and brothers and sisters who are not residents of the United States are never entitled to receive any compensation.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.

On August 14, 2007, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that toymaker Mattel is voluntarily recalling 9 million of its toys in the United States. The recalled items include popular characters such as Batman, Barbie, Polly Pockets and a toy from Pixar’s “Cars” movie because of hazards to children.
18.2 million magnetic toys are being recalled globally and the majority of the toys are no longer available in stores.
Some of the recalled toys have magnets that can become dislodged and swallowed. At least one toy has hazardous levels of lead in its paint.
The majority of the recall – 7 million toys – involves Polly Pocket dolls and accessories, which contain small magnets. These toys were produced between May 2003 to November 2006. None of the toys manufactured after November 1, 2006, are affected by the recall.
To access the Mattell recall page, type: http://www.mattel.com/safety/us/
To access the U.S. Product Safety Commission website, type : http://www.cpsc.gov/

Thomas P. Cummings, Esq.
DLP Law Offices
570-347-1011
[email protected]

The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have created a website that sets forth comprehensive information and statistics regarding truck crashes. Crash statistics are summarized for large trucks and buses involved in fatal and non-fatal crashes that occurred in the United States. These statistics are derived from two sources: the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS). The website contains profiles for individual states as well as national crash statistics.
The State Crash Reports offer users a selection of reports that are organized into seven focus areas: Summary, Vehicle, Driver, Environment, Crash, Carrier and Maps. The information is displayed in tabular and graphical format. Crash location data are also displayed on colorful maps. Crash statistics contain information that can be used to identify safety problems in specific geographical areas or to compare state statistics to the national crash figures.
National Profiles provide national summary statistics on large truck and bus crashes. National Profiles are divided into two areas: National Profile Reports and State Comparison Reports. The National Profile Reports highlight carriers with the most reported crashes in a calendar year and reflect the truck, driver and environment characteristics for large truck crashes. State Comparison Reports may be used to analyze the number of crashes reported over a period of time and to compare crash results among states.
Click or type the following link to access the site:

http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/CrashProfile/CrashProfileMainNew.asp

If you or a loved one has been injured in a truck accident, call the team DLP Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorneys for a free consultation. Remember- INJURY, CALL DLP.

Thomas P. Cummings, Esq.
[email protected]
570-347-1011

February is the time of year when many young men decide that their current love is the one that they want to spend the rest of their life with. Here in the United States, it is customary for young men to go out and buy a diamond engagement ring in order to demonstrate their love and commitment to their future bride. Prior to making this major investment, here are a few tips that you should consider:

1. Insure that you are dealing with a reputable & experienced diamond jeweler,
2. Make sure that the diamond is certified by the gemologist institute of America,
3. Research the four C’s: carrot, cut, clarity & color, prior to purchasing.

Now for some law. Just in case the engagement does not lead to an actual marriage. Can a young man recover his diamond ring? In the case of Lindh v. Surman, 702 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 1997), a young couple became engaged. The diamond ring was worth $21,000.00. The future bride and her family began wedding preparations. However, the future bride then got cold feet and called off the wedding. The future groom requested his ring back and the young woman refused to return the same. The case went to court and the issue was, Who should get the ring? The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the gift of an engagement ring was subject to the an implied condition requiring its return if a marriage does not take place.

So go ahead and fall in love this February but remember to always know the law.

Respectfully submitted,
Brian G. Price, Esquire
Dougherty, Leventhal & Price, L.L.P (DLP)
459 Wyoming Ave.
Kingston, Pa. 18704
Also in Moosic, Honesdale & Haz1eton
Toll free 1-877-357-9700

The laws in Pennsylvania set forth specific requirements as to which types of employers must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The law indicates that mandatory coverage is required for any employer who:
-employ at least one employee who could be injured or develop a work-related disease in Pennsylvania, or
-employ an employee who could be injured outside the state if the employment is principally localized in Pennsylvania, or
-employ an individual who could be injured outside the state, while under a contract of hire made in Pennsylvania, if the employment is not principally localized in any state, if the employment is principally localized in a state whose workers’ compensation laws do not apply, or the employment is outside the United States and Canada (UNLESS all employees are excluded from the provisions of Pennsylvania’s workers’ compensation laws).

Generally, a policy for workers’ compensation liability insurance :
-indemnifies the employer from wage loss and medical benefits incurred as a result of work-related injuries or occupational diseases,
-protects the employer from tort liability for lawsuits arising from work-related injuries and diseases, and
-protects the employer and agents acting on its behalf from criminal prosecution, which can result in imprisonment and substantial fines for each day of noncompliance.
In Pennsylvania, an employer may be excluded from the requirement to insure its workers’ compensation liability only if ALL workers employed by it fall into one or more of the following categories:
-federal workers
-longshoremen
-railroad workers
-casual workers whose employment is casual in character AND not in the regular course of the business of the employer
-persons who work out of their own homes or other premises not under the control or management of the enterprise AND make up, clean, wash, alter, ornament, finish, repair, or adapt articles or materials for sale that are given to them
-agricultural laborers earning under $1200 per person per calendar year AND no one agricultural laborer works 30 days or more per calendar year, unless the agricultural labor is provided by the employer’s spouse or child(ren) under the age of eighteen and they have not sought inclusion under Pennsylvania’s workers’ compensation laws by filing an express written contract of hire with the Department
-domestic workers who have not elected with the Department of Labor and Industry to come under the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act
-sole proprietor or general partners
-have been granted exemption due to their religious beliefs by the Department of Labor and Industry
-executive officers who have been granted exclusion by the Department of Labor and Industry
-licensed real estate salespersons or associate real estate brokers affiliated with a licensed real estate broker or a licensed insurance agent affiliated with a licensed insurance agency, under a written agreement, remunerated on a commission-only basis and qualifying as independent contractors for State tax purposes or for Federal tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Unless ALL employees meet one or more of the above exclusions, the employer must insure for workers’ compensation liability even if the workers are working limited hours part-time or are family members such as a spouse or children.
Failure of an employer to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage subjects that employer to criminal prosecution and penalties including fines, imprisonment, and payment of restitution.
Employers are required by law to post, in a prominent and easily accessible place, at it’s primary place of business and at it’s sites of employment, a notice containing the name, address and telephone number of the appropriate party to address regarding workers’ compensation claims or to request information. If an employer is not doing so and you suspect the employer does not insure its workers’ compensation liability, contact the Compliance Section, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation at (717) 787-3567.

Source: Section 305 of the Pennsylvania Worker’ Compensation Act

Thomas P. Cummings, Esq.