attorney fees - UTPCPL -

Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial  - Pa. Superior Court – June 30, 2022- non-precedential**

 

The purpose of the UTPCPL is to protect the public from fraud and unfair or deceptive business practices. See 73 P.S. §§ 201-2., 201-3. To facilitate that goal, in addition to other relief, the statute permits a court to award costs and reasonable attorney fees. See 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a);see also Krishnan v. Cutler Group, Inc., 171 A.3d 856, 871 (Pa. Super. 2017). In cases involving a lawsuit that includes claims under the UTPCPL, a trial court considers the following factors when assessing the reasonableness of counsel fees: 

(1) [t]he time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill requisite properly to conduct the case; 

(2) [t]he customary charges of the members of the bar for similar services; 

(3) [t]he amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the clients from the services; and 

(4)[t]he contingency or certainty of the compensation. 

Sewak v. Lockhart, 699 A.2d 755, 762 (Pa. Super. 1997), abrogated on other grounds, 245 A.3d 637, 648 (Pa. 2021). 

+++

 

** An unreported decision of the Superior Court can be cited for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 126(b). 

 

 

 

employment - free speech - government employer

Amalgamated Transit Union v. Port Authority of Allegheny County – 3d Cir. – June 29, 2022

 

Held: Government body violated the First Amendment by prohibiting its employees from wearing COVID masks expressing support for Black Lives Matter. 

 

From the opinion:

Beginning in April 2020, the Port Authority of Allegheny County (“Port Authority”) required its uniformed employees to wear face masks at work. Some employees wore masks bearing political or social-protest messages. Concerned that such masks would disrupt its workplace, Port Authority prohibited them in July 2020. When several employees wore masks expressing support for Black Lives Matter, Port Authority disciplined them under this policy. In September 2020, Port Authority imposed additional restrictions, confining employees to a narrow range of masks. Together with their union, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 85 (“Local 85”), the employees sued, alleging that Port Authority had violated their First Amendment rights.1 

The District Court entered a preliminary injunction rescinding discipline imposed under the July policy and preventing Port Authority from enforcing its policy against “Black Lives Matter” masks. Port Authority appeals. 

The government may limit the speech of its employees more than it may limit the speech of the public, but those limits must still comport with the protections of the First Amendment. Port Authority bears the burden of showing that Employees and Local 85 amended their complaint to reflect the September policy. its policy is constitutional. It has not made that showing. We will affirm the District Court’s order.