Posts Tagged ‘workers compensation lawsuit’

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has addressed the issue of what constitutes an “abnormal working condition” for the purposes of establishing a work related mental injury. In McLaurin v. W.C.A.B. (SEPTA), the claimant was a SEPTA bus driver with a set route in West Philadelphia. One day, several hooded young men entered his bus without paying their fares. At the end of the bus route, one of these men approached McLaurin and pulled a gun. McLaurin pleaded with the gunman, who eventually put away his weapon and got off the bus. McLaurin then drove to the bus depot and told his supervisor what had happened. He was unable to work the next day nor any other days after that. He then filed a claim petition seeking workers compensation benefits alleging that he suffered work-related post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and angina as a result of the bus incident. The Commonwealth Court has held that Mr. McLaurin did not experience an “abnormal working condition” which he would need to establish to meet his burden of proof in establishing a psychiatric injury. The Court noted that the record contained substantial evidence which showed that life-threatening situations had occurred to its employees “with sufficient frequency that methods of dealing with dangerous passengers were built into employees’ training, and that the bus driver could have thus anticipated his assault”.

SCRANTON – A federal judge has denied a motion filed by glass manufacturer Schott North America that sought the dismissal of a gender discrimination suit filed by six women who were laid off in 2004.
U.S. District Judge James M. Munley on Monday said the women had presented sufficient evidence to support their claims that a rating system the company employed in determining which workers would keep their jobs was biased in favor of males.

The suit, filed in 2006, alleges the rating system placed an improper amount of weight on skills utilized in jobs that were primarily held by men, compared to jobs that were held by women. That allowed men to score higher, resulting in more men than women retaining their jobs after a layoff at the company’s Duryea plant in October 2004, the suit says.

According to the suit:

Production workers at the plant were divided into two sections: “hot end” workers, who operated machines that produced glass, and “cold end” workers, who inspected the glass for defects and provided other finishing services. More than 95 percent of the hot end jobs were held by males, while roughly 76 percent of cold end jobs were held by females.

In 2004, Schott decided to cease production of a certain type of glass at the Duryea plant. That led to a layoff and the creation of a new position that combined the duties of hot end and cold end jobs. To determine which workers would get the new positions, the company devised a rating system that assigned a numeric score to certain job skills.

The lawsuit alleged that system was heavily weighted in favor of skills developed by hot end workers, even though the new position required a combination of skills used in both positions.

According to court documents, one-third of the 73 workers who were evaluated were female, but only two of the 36 positions that were created were awarded to women.

Schott claimed the hot end tasks were more difficult, thus it was proper to give those skills more weight. The plaintiffs maintained the cold end jobs were equally difficult. They alleged the matrix was a ruse designed to ensure more men than women would get the jobs.

In a 35-page ruling, Munley said the women had presented evidence that the rating system did not rate skills required for the job, but instead valued the skills that men were more likely to have than women.
Munley noted testimony by females who said there was a long-standing, hostile atmosphere toward women in the plant. Some had testified they were subjected to sexual harassment and were often belittled by male counterparts.

The suit was filed by the Equal Opportunity Commission on behalf of six women, who are represented privately by attorney Peter Winebrake of Philadelphia and Sean McDonough of Moosic.

Officials from Schott did not immediately return a phone message left at the Duryea plant late Monday afternoon

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that a Five-year Statute of Limitations applies when charges are filed against an employer who fails to secure a policy for Workers’ Compensation insurance. The Court noted that the customary Two-year period of Limitations would impair the “Commonwealth’s ability to prosecute offenses” and that criminal charges can stand as long as they are filed within five years of the alleged infraction.

In reaching this decision, the Court reversed a trial court’s ruling that had dismissed the charges for being filed after a two-year statute of limitations had expired.

According to the opinion in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Corban Corporation (decided 10/4/06), the injured worker, Elmer Kennedy, suffered serious burns while working as a hard laborer for Corban in December 2000. At the time of the injury, Corban did not have Workers’ Compensations Insurance due to its failure to pay premiums, a fact verified by Corban’s insurance agent. After Kennedy’s workers’ compensation claim was denied by the insurance company for lack of coverage, the Lehigh County Insurance Fraud Task Force undertook an investigation. In September 2004, the Task Force filed a criminal complaint asserting seven counts of third-degree felony charges against Corban. Corban filed a motion requesting dismissal of these complaints on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5552 had expired in September 2002, prior to the Commonwealth’s complaint.

The Northhampton County Court of Common Pleas sided with Corban. The Superior Court, however, has reversed, noting that the language in the Workers’ Compensation Act regarding the five-year limitations period (77 P.S. § 1039.12) more accurately applies to Corban’s violations than that outlining the two-year limitations period. The case has now been remanded to the Northampton County Court for further proceedings.

SOURCE: PaTLA 121 South Broad Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA, 19107
Copyright © 2004, PaTLA All Rights Reserved