Yanakos v. UPMC, University of Pittsburgh Physicians – Legal Reform
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The NFIB Legal Center joined with other industry groups in urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reconsider a decision invalidating Pennsylvania’s statute of repose that the Legislature enacted to limit medical malpractice liability.
Dana Holding Co. v. WC Appeal Board – Employment
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
NFIB Legal Center filed a brief arguing that the PA Supreme Court’s decision in Protz v. WC Appeal Board (affecting workers compensation rates) should not be applied retroactively.
Gregg v. Ameriprise – Legal Reform
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The court will decide whether strict liability applies to UTPCPL claims despite the statute’s express requirement that deceptive conduct be proven.
Walsh v. BASF – Legal Reform
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
In this wrongful-death suit against multiple pesticide manufacturers including BASF Corp. Pennsylvania’s highest court will decide whether the lower court committed reversible error in concluding that, when evaluating scientific evidence under the Frye standard, trial courts are not permitted to act as ‘gatekeepers’ to ensure the relevance and reliability of scientific studies offered by experts to support their opinions by scrutinizing whether those studies actually support their opinions.
Like v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co. – Property Rights
U.S. Supreme Court – Cert. Petition
The Natural Gas Act authorizes public utilities to condemn private property through eminent domain procedures when constructing gas lines; however, it does not authorize entry on the property until after just compensation has been paid. Nonetheless, the district court issued an injunction allowing immediate entry on the properties in question. The NFIB Legal Center joined with other concerned groups in urging the Supreme Court to take this case to protect the rights of landowners.
Murray v. American LaFrance LLC – Legal Reform
Pennsylvania Superior Court
The NFIB Legal Center joined business groups in an amicus filing that challenges plaintiff’s blatant forum shopping, a practice that burdens Pennsylvania – and especially Philadelphia – courts with cases having nothing to do with the Commonwealth. The brief argues that non-Pennsylvania plaintiffs suing non-Pennsylvania defendants over non-Pennsylvania facts overtax Pennsylvania’s courts and unfairly burden Pennsylvania jurors.
Roverno v. John Crane – Legal Reform
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
NFIB joined with other business groups and asked the court to follow the letter of the law in the Fair Share Act and “apportion liability on a percentage basis as opposed to a per capita basis” in the strict liability asbestos case of Roverano v. Crane, Inc.
Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia – Labor and Employment
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
The NFIB Small Business Legal Center joined with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in filing an amicus brief challenging a Philadelphia municipal ordinance, which prohibits employers from asking job applicants about their pay history or past salaries. This is not only bad policy—which will make it harder for small businesses to perform job searches—but it violates the First Amendment.
Razak v. Uber – Labor and Employment
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
The NFIB Legal Center filed an amicus brief to support affirmance of the district court’s decision in this Uber independent contractor misclassification case. The district court granted Uber’s motion for summary judgment and held that the plaintiffs (three individuals who provided transportation services using the UberBLACK app) were properly classified as independent contractors. That decision is important for all entities that utilize independent contractors, and particularly for those in the “gig” economy.
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania – Property Rights
U.S. Supreme Court
In this case a Pennsylvania township enacted an ordinance purporting to give the public a right of access on private property to visit historic grave sites. But since the Supreme Court has ruled definitively that government must provide just compensation when taking away the right to exclude the public from private lands, a private property owner challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The NFIB Legal Center has urged the Supreme Court to reverse a Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals decision that this lawsuit should have been brought in state court because we contend that suits seeking vindication of federal rights belong in federal court.
Chevalier v. GNC – Employment
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The NFIB Legal Center filed a brief regarding appropriate calculation of wages for a fluctuating workweek.
PA Restaurant and Lodging Association v. City of Pittsburgh – Labor & Employment
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The NFIB Legal Center filed an amicus brief urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to affirm a decision from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court that Pennsylvania law prohibits municipalities from regulating the employer-employee relationship.
PA Restaurant and Lodging Association v. City of Pittsburgh – Labor & Employment
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The NFIB Legal Center filed an amicus brief urging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to affirm a decision from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court that Pennsylvania law prohibits municipalities from regulating the employer-employee relationship.
BouSamra v. Excela Health – Legal Reform
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The Commonwealth’s highest court has been asked to decide whether company conversations with public relations and legal counsel are privileged when determining how best to represent the company. NFIB Small Business Legal Center’s brief argues that privilege over attorney-client documents should not be waived merely because they are shared with PR counsel to ensure that the company’s comments in the media is consistent with their legal positioning.
Williams v. City of Philadelphia – Tax
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The NFIB Legal Center filed an amicus brief and argued that the City of Philadelphia violated state law in imposing a municipal tax on distributors selling soda because this amounts to double sales tax.
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania – Property Rights
U.S. Supreme Court – cert petition
In this case a Pennsylvania township enacted an ordinance purporting to give the public a right of access on private property to visit historic grave sites. But since the Supreme Court has ruled definitively that government must provide just compensation when taking away the right to exclude the public from private lands, a private property owner challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The NFIB Legal Center filed a petition for certiorari urging the Supreme Court to review and reverse a Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals decision that this lawsuit should have been brought in state court because we contend that suits seeking vindication of federal rights belong in federal court.
Steak ‘N Shake v. Mielo – Legal Reform
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
The NFIB Legal Center joined in an amicus brief, which urged the court to overturn a grant of class certification in a case under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 27, 2017, the District Court certified a nationwide class of persons with mobility disabilities who encountered barriers to access in parking lots under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 23(b)(2)”). For Steak ‘N Shake, a dispute over the experience of two plaintiffs’ visits to two locations threatens to involve the potential inspection and remediation of more than 400 owned restaurants across the nationwide class and sets a dangerous precedent.
DuPont v. Smiley – Labor and Employment
U.S. Supreme Court – cert petition
In this case, the court below ruled against an employer on a question of wage and hour law under the Fair Labor Standards Act—not because it determined that the plaintiffs had advanced the strongest legal argument, but simply because the Department of Labor filed an amicus brief on behalf of the employees. NFIB argued that it is improper for the courts to automatically defer to a federal agency’s position—especially where, as in this case, advanced for the first time in an amicus brief. Accordingly, NFIB Legal Center urged the Supreme Court to take this case to reconsider the so-called “Skidmore deference” doctrine.
Williams v. City of Philadelphia – Tax/Regulatory
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The NFIB Legal Center joined an industry brief arguing that the City of Philadelphia is prohibited by a state statute from imposing taxes on soda sales—even if imposed at the point of distribution. The brief argued that Philadelphia’s arguments, if accepted, would open the door for other cities throughout the commonwealth to impose taxes on products in patchwork manner that contravenes the State Legislature’s intent and undermines the State’s taxing authority.
Valley Forge Towers Apts. v. Urban Merion Area School Dist. – Tax
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania – Middle District
The NFIB Small Business Legal Center joined an amicus brief in a case dealing with spot assessments by school districts for property tax. Specifically, school districts targeting commercial property for assessment appeals. The problem lies in many counties not doing countywide reassessments of property values on a frequent basis. It has been decades since the last reassessment in many counties. By targeting commercial properties to bring them to current valuations, while leaving others under assessed, NFIB’s brief argued that such assessments violate the uniformity clause of taxation in Pennsylvania’s constitution.
Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia – Labor and Employment
E.D. of Pennsylvania
The NFIB Small Business Legal Center joined with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in filing an amicus brief challenging a Philadelphia municipal ordinance, which prohibits employers from asking job applicants about their pay history or past salaries. This is not only bad policy—which will make it harder for small businesses to perform job searches—but it violates the First Amendment. Specifically, the ordinance limits the free speech rights of Philadelphia employers. And while the ordinance is intended to encourage greater pay equity, there are other available alternatives that would more directly advance that public goal without restricting free speech rights. Accordingly, the Legal Center argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional.
Markham v. Wolf – Labor
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The Legal Center joined in an amicus brief challenging Governor Wolf’s executive order seeking to unionize home health care aides. The lawsuit alleges that the order violates the state constitution and state law.
Nertavich v. PPL – Legal Reform
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
In this case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been asked to hold property owners liable for negligent acts of their employees, without regard to whether the property owner has exerted any control over the contractor’s work. NFIB Legal Center joined with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in this filing, arguing that the Court should affirm the historic common law rule that a landowner is not liable for the actions of a contractor except in the event that he or she directs the contractor to take specific actions that directly cause injury to another.
Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging Assoc. v. Pittsburgh – Labor and Employment
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
Pennsylvania law plainly forbids municipalities from imposing burdens on employers. Accordingly, labor and employment standards are to be established at the state level by the General Assembly, not at the municipal level. Nonetheless, the City of Pittsburgh enacted an ordinance requiring employers to provide paid sick leave to employees. The City now appeals a lower court decision striking down the ordinance. On appeal Pittsburgh maintains that it has the prerogative to require employers to provide paid sick leave as a measure to promote public health; however, NFIB Small Business Legal Center argues that the ordinance indisputably violates state law requiring uniformity of business regulation and that the City’s posited exception for matters of public health would swallow the rule.
Tincher v. Omega Flex – Legal Reform
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The court will decide whether it should replace the strict liability analysis of Section 402A of the Second Restatement with the Third Restatement, a preferable standard for defendants involved in product liability cases. The court will also decide, if they adopt the Third Restatement, whether the holding should be applied prospectively only.
~
If you have a case that impacts small business, please contact us at 1-800-552-NFIB as we are actively looking for opportunities to weigh in on important issues in this state. NFIB Small Business Legal Center is involved in many cases that impact this state and others; to see our complete list of Supreme Court cases click on Washington, DC on the interactive map.
Thank You
