Articles by Our Attorneys

Once a child graduates from high school, the focus shifts to the next major event. That
event could be work, college, or vocational school. While these are indeed momentous,
an even bigger event is occurring simultaneously. That is, the child is turning 18 years
old. In the eyes of the law, this means that the child is now considered an adult.

Although the child still looks the same physically, coming of age signals less control for
the parent. The child is now capable of signing legal paperwork on his or her own
behalf. The child no longer needs a formal guardian. Rather, the child is an adult in the
eyes of the law, and with that qualification, parents no longer have the same ability to
speak on behalf of the child as they did when they were the child’s guardian.

For example, once a child turns 18, a parent can no longer receive HIPPA protected
medical documents on the child’s behalf. A parent has no right to speak on the child’s
behalf to authorize a medical procedure. A parent likewise cannot handle financial
matters for the child. Simply put, a parent’s rights are significantly reduced from what
they were when the child was a minor, and the parent was the child’s legal guardian.
Once a child turns 18 years old, a parent must be given permission by the child to
speak on his or her behalf both financially and medically. This is done through a power
of attorney. In a power of attorney document, the principal, which in this case is the
child, gives an agent the ability to speak on their behalf in the event that the child cannot
do so. One is a durable general power of attorney for financial matters, and one is a
healthcare power of attorney for medical matters. In both, the child names the parent,
or parents, as his or her agent. In that way, the parents can continue to have the ability
to speak and receive protected information on behalf of their child.

Where this plays out most is when the child moves away from home to attend school or
work. The child sustains a medical emergency while away from home, and the parent
tries to gather information. Medical providers are not allowed by law to provide any
information without a valid healthcare power of attorney document once the child is over
18 years old. Likewise, the parent is not authorized to make medical decisions on
behalf of the child without having been named their power of attorney. Finally, if a
banking issue comes up while the child is away from home, such as a lost debit card,
the parent is unable to handle the matter if not legally named the child’s durable power
of attorney.

We want what’s best for our children. We want them to succeed in life. Besides
teaching them the necessities of life, such as how to do laundry, make sure your child is
protected with power of attorney documents. A diploma moves them to the next stage
of life. Powers of attorney allow parents to speak on behalf of their now adult children
when needed.

Author Sally A. Farrell is an attorney who concentrates her practice in estate planning and administration, advising clients on strategies designed to preserve wealth, minimize tax exposure, maximize asset growth, and pass family wealth to future generations. Learn more: www.macelree.com/attorney/sally-a-ferrell.

Author: Tim Rayne, Personal Injury Attorney at MacElree Harvey

Denise was a graduate student at Penn State when her life was suddenly transformed by a preventable accident. She slipped and fell on snow and ice at her apartment complex and sustained a serious wrist injury.  

The condition never should have existed.  The apartment owner and the snow removal contractor both failed to properly shovel and salt the parking lot after a snow storm and bitter cold created treacherous conditions which cased the fall.

Instead of taking responsibility, the Defense did what they often do: they blamed Denise.

At Mediation, the Defense made what they called a “best and final” offer. It was close, but not enough to fairly compensate Denise. 

Then came the pressure. The defense attorneys stood firm. Even the Mediator, a retired judge, tried to strong arm Deniz to take the deal, claiming that she was risking getting significantly less from a Jury at Trial.

This is where many cases end.

The reality is, a lot of lawyers will tell their clients to take that “best and final” offer and move on. It’s easier. It avoids the risk, time, and effort of litigation.

But Denise made a different choice.

She stood her ground.

And as her lawyer, I stood with her.

We insisted that our valuation of the case was fair and walked out of Mediation without a settlement and made it clear: we were prepared to take the case all the way to trial. We moved forward aggressivel by scheduling additional Depositions to build the case, showing the defense we were serious and willing to take our chances in Court.

That’s when everything changed.

The same Defense lawyers that refused to compromise at Mediation came back and offered the number Denise had asked for all along.

In the end, Denise didn’t just settle—she closed the case on her terms.

The takeaway is simple: it matters who you hire. You need a personal injury lawyer who is willing to litigate and try your case, not one who simply accepts the “best and final” offer. Sometimes, the difference between settling cheap and getting fair compensation is having a lawyer willing to fight.

Sometimes, the best move is refusing to take the deal.

Author Tim Rayne is a Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyer with MacElree Harvey, and has offices in West Chester and Kennett Square. For over 30 years, Tim has been helping accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from Insurance Companies. Tim has extensive experience negotiating settlements but also trying cases in Court. Contact Tim Rayne at 610-840-0124 or [email protected] or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

The April 2026 employment law update highlights a sharp turn in federal enforcement priorities, as agencies tighten scrutiny on joint employment liability, DEI practices, and federal contractor compliance – reshaping the legal risk landscape for employers across industries. Get the latest below.

DOL Unveils Revised Joint Employer Rule to Clarify Shared Liability for Wage and Hour Violations

The U.S. Department of Labor announced this month a newly proposed rule on joint employer liability that more detailed guidance on how businesses would be evaluated when determining responsibility for wage and hour violations under federal labor laws. The rule applies to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), and is intended to clarify when multiple employers may be held jointly liable for unpaid wages, overtime violations, or leave-related obligations.

The proposal distinguishes between two forms of joint employment: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal joint employment occurs when a worker has separate employment relationships with two or more related employers that are sufficiently associated with one another. For example, if two restaurants share ownership, management, or scheduling authority, an employee working for both may be considered jointly employed. In such cases, the Department would examine whether the employers coordinate operations, share supervisors, or have overlapping control over employment decisions.

Vertical joint employment applies when a worker is formally employed by one company, such as a staffing agency or subcontractor, but another business exercises significant control over the employee’s work. To determine this, the rule outlines four main factors: the ability to hire or fire the worker, supervision and control over work schedules or conditions, authority over pay and compensation methods, and maintenance of employment records.

Unlike the 2020 Trump-era rule, the new proposal allows courts and investigators to consider indirect or even potential control, not just direct actions taken by the employer. It also removes strict limits on considering economic dependence, meaning broader workplace realities may influence decisions. This approach aims to improve legal defensibility while still giving employers clearer compliance standards.

Latest EEOC Report Signals Shift Toward DEI Scrutiny, Pre-Litigation Settlements, and AI Adoption

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2025 performance report issued this month reveals a major shift in enforcement priorities under President Donald Trump’s administration, signaling a stronger focus on workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)

programs, religious discrimination, and what the agency calls discrimination against American workers.

The report highlights the agency’s efforts to challenge DEI initiatives it considers unlawful, mentioning DEI 14 times and emphasizing “anti-American bias” in hiring practices. One example was a $1.4 million consent decree involving LeoPalace in Guam, where the EEOC alleged foreign-preference discrimination.

The agency also reported recovering $660 million for nearly 17,700 workers facing workplace discrimination, with $528 million secured before litigation through mediation, conciliation, and settlements—the highest pre-litigation recovery in its history. This signals stronger pressure on employers during investigations before lawsuits are filed.

Additionally, the EEOC is expanding its use of technology, including texting platforms and artificial intelligence tools like Microsoft 365 Copilot, to improve communication, legal research, and case preparation.

The report reflects a broader philosophical realignment at the EEOC, with less emphasis on traditional civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ employees and a greater focus on scrutinizing workplace policies involving immigration and hiring preferences.

DOJ Secures $17M IBM Settlement in First False Claims Act Case Targeting DEI Policies

IBM has agreed to pay $17 million to settle allegations brought by the U.S. Department of Justice that it violated the False Claims Act through diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives tied to its federal contracting work. The Justice Department, under the Trump administration, said the settlement is the first under a new enforcement initiative targeting DEI-related practices in companies receiving federal funds.

Officials alleged that IBM engaged in discriminatory policies by linking bonus compensation to workforce demographic targets, adjusting interview eligibility based on race or gender, and setting diversity goals for business units. The government also claimed the company offered training, mentoring, and leadership opportunities on the basis of protected characteristics rather than merit.

IBM did not admit liability and denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle and pay the penalty while also modifying or eliminating the contested policies. A company spokesperson said IBM’s hiring and promotion strategy is based on ensuring employees have the skills required by clients.

The Justice Department framed the case as part of a broader effort to ensure federal contractors do not use taxpayer-funded work to support what it described as unlawful DEI practices. The initiative follows a 2025 directive allowing False Claims Act enforcement against contractors alleged to engage in discriminatory diversity programs.

The settlement also reflects a wider political and legal campaign by the administration to restrict DEI programs in both government and private-sector contracting, alongside increased scrutiny of firms and institutions with diversity-focused policies.

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.  

In the March 2026 update, we see employers facing legal uncertainty as regulators and courts redefine compliance boundaries, from workplace benefits and data security to wage rights. Read the details below:

Data Breach Lawsuit Against Philadelphia Aging Nonprofit Highlights Rising Employer Liability Risks

The Philadelphia Corporation for Aging is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it failed to adequately protect employees’ sensitive personal information, leading to a significant data breach. The complaint, filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County by Carl Dunbar, claims the nonprofit’s negligence exposed workers’ personally identifiable information (PII) to cybercriminals.

According to the lawsuit, the breach was detected in July, but affected employees were not notified until November, leaving them vulnerable to identity theft and financial harm for months. The compromised data reportedly includes Social Security numbers, financial account details, medical information, and other highly sensitive records.

Dunbar alleges that PCA failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards and did not disclose the root cause of the breach, further compounding the harm. The suit also claims the organization violated its contractual obligations to employees by not securing their data.

The complaint warns that the stolen information could circulate on the dark web or be used for fraud and unauthorized purposes. Plaintiffs argue the breach could have been prevented with stronger security measures or by limiting the storage of sensitive data.

For employers, the case underscores growing legal and reputational risks tied to data security. Companies are increasingly expected to adopt robust cybersecurity practices, minimize the collection and retention of sensitive information, and provide timely breach notifications. Failure to do so may not only trigger litigation but also erode employee trust and invite regulatory scrutiny.

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Wage Laws Protect Unauthorized Workers

The Supreme Court of New Jersey unanimously ruled that workers are entitled to wages under state law regardless of immigration status, reinforcing broad protections under New Jersey’s wage and hour statutes. The decision revived a lawsuit filed by Sergio Lopez, who sought unpaid wages from Marmic LLC after performing work as a superintendent. The court remanded the case to determine damages, overturning a lower court ruling that had dismissed his claim.

The justices held that the Immigration Reform and Control Act does not prohibit employers from paying undocumented workers for labor already completed. They emphasized that denying such wages would undermine both federal and state law by incentivizing employers to exploit

undocumented workers. Under New Jersey law, Lopez qualified as an employee and was therefore entitled to compensation for services rendered.

The court also rejected arguments that Lopez’s use of an invalid Social Security number invalidated his claim, stating that wage protections apply even when workers lack proper documentation. Additionally, the court distinguished the Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. v. NLRB decision, clarifying that it applies only to back pay for work not performed, not unpaid wages for completed labor.

EEOC Upholds Limits on Gender Dysphoria Coverage, Citing Supreme Court Precedent

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled in a 2–1 decision that the Office of Personnel Management did not violate federal civil rights laws by allowing health plans to limit coverage for gender dysphoria treatments. The majority based its reasoning on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s restrictions on gender transitioning medical care for minors. The EEOC concluded that decisions based on medical diagnoses like gender dysphoria are not inherently discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The ruling overturns a prior EEOC decision that had found OPM’s policies unlawful. Commissioners Andrea Lucas and Brittany Bull Panuccio formed the majority, emphasizing that OPM acted rationally in balancing cost, medical considerations, and insurer discretion. They also rejected claims under the Rehabilitation Act, citing a safe harbor provision.

Dissenting Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal argued the decision undermines transgender protections and misapplies precedent, including Williams v. Kincaid. She criticized the majority’s reasoning and language, calling it inconsistent with civil rights principles and medical consensus.

The case is Sam T. et al. v. Scott Kupor before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

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.