News

October 2025’s employment law update examines major developments in labor and employment litigation, featuring a multimillion-dollar antitrust settlement between Pennsylvania hospitals over alleged no-poach agreements, a jury verdict recognizing post-COVID remote-work accommodation rights under the ADA, and the New Jersey Attorney General’s lawsuit challenging Amazon’s classification of its Flex drivers. Get the latest details here. 

Pa. Hospitals to Pay $28.5M in Settlement Over Alleged No-Poach Agreement  

Two Pennsylvania hospital systems – Geisinger System Services and Evangelical Community Hospital – have agreed to pay a combined $28.5 million to settle an antitrust class action alleging they illegally agreed not to recruit each other’s healthcare workers. The settlement, which awaits final approval in federal court, will benefit roughly 12,000 employees across six Pennsylvania counties who worked at either institution between 2014 and 2020. 

Under the agreement, Geisinger will pay $19 million and Evangelical $9.5 million to resolve claims that their “no-poach” pact suppressed wages and limited job mobility among doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. The lawsuit, filed in 2021, stemmed from allegations that the hospitals secretly agreed to avoid hiring each other’s staff, an arrangement that plaintiffs said reduced competition in the labor market. 

Both hospitals denied wrongdoing, arguing against class certification and the plaintiffs’ expert analyses. However, after years of discovery and negotiations, the parties reached a settlement deemed fair and reasonable under federal rules. Plaintiffs’ counsel plan to seek up to one-third of the fund in attorney fees and $10,000 service awards for lead plaintiffs. 

The result underscores growing antitrust scrutiny of labor market practices, particularly in healthcare, where worker mobility and pay competitiveness are crucial.  The case is In re Geisinger System Services and Evangelical Community Hospital Healthcare Workers Antitrust Litigation, case number 4:21-cv-00196, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 

National Grid Hit With $3.1M Verdict for Denying Disabled Workers’ COVID-Era Telework Requests 

A New York federal jury has awarded over $3.1 million to two former National Grid dispatchers who alleged the company unlawfully denied their requests to continue teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic. The verdict, delivered in Russo et al. v. National Grid USA, underscores the expanding scope of workplace accommodation rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York’s human rights laws. 

Plaintiffs Luciano Russo and George Messiha, both emergency crew dispatchers, sought to remain remote to manage chronic health conditions including back injuries, diabetes, and anxiety. National Grid initially permitted remote work but later required a return to in-person duties, asserting that on-site presence was essential to operations. The jury disagreed, finding the company failed to prove undue hardship or demonstrate why remote work was incompatible with essential job functions. 

Russo received $1.56 million, while Messiha was awarded $1.55 million in back pay, emotional distress, and punitive damages. 

This decision reinforces that telework can be a reasonable accommodation when job performance is not compromised, and employers must substantiate denials with clear operational justifications. It serves as a critical reminder for employers to engage in individualized, good-faith accommodation discussions—particularly in the post-pandemic workplace landscape. 

New Jersey Sues Amazon for Misclassifying Flex Drivers as Contractors 

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin has filed a lawsuit against Amazon, alleging the company illegally classifies its Flex delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of wages and benefits guaranteed under state law. Filed in Essex County Superior Court, the complaint asserts that Amazon’s control over Flex drivers — including scheduling, pay, performance evaluations, and delivery expectations — meets the legal standard for employee status under New Jersey’s strict “ABC test.” 

According to the complaint, Amazon’s misclassification has cost “thousands” of drivers millions in unpaid wages, overtime, and benefits, including paid sick leave and unemployment insurance contributions. The lawsuit follows a Department of Labor audit that began after several drivers filed unemployment and disability claims in 2020, revealing alleged misclassification from 2017 to 2020 and beyond. 

Platkin criticized Amazon’s “exploitative” labor practices, arguing the trillion-dollar company prioritizes profit over worker rights. Labor Commissioner Rob Asaro-Angelo echoed this, calling Amazon’s conduct “illegal—plain and simple.” 

Amazon disputes the claims, stating that Flex drivers voluntarily choose flexible delivery blocks and enjoy independence over their schedules. The case, Asaro-Angelo v. Amazon.com et al., could have significant implications for gig-economy classification standards and worker protections in New Jersey and beyond. 

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 September 2025, federal courts issued a series of rulings narrowing the scope of workplace discrimination and retaliation claims. From vaccine refusals to one-off slurs to a professor’s racial remarks, judges emphasized that not every workplace dispute rises to the level of a federal case. Get the details in our latest update. 

Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Vaccine-Based Religious Bias Suit Against Philadelphia Schools 

The Third Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit brought by a former Philadelphia school district employee who refused the COVID-19 vaccine. In Gregory Bingham Jr. v. Philadelphia School District (No. 24-2998), the appellate panel upheld summary judgment for the district, concluding that Bingham’s resignation was voluntary and not the result of religious discrimination. 

Bingham alleged that he was terminated because his Christian beliefs prevented him from receiving the vaccine. However, the court noted that he later admitted to interviewing for and accepting a new job at a nearby charter school before resigning from his district position. The panel emphasized that “a voluntary resignation is not a disciplinary action taken by the employer.” 

Under Title VII, plaintiffs must establish that a religious belief conflicted with a job requirement, that the employer was informed of the conflict, and that disciplinary action followed. The panel found Bingham’s claim failed at the threshold, as he was not disciplined. 

The court also rejected Bingham’s arguments regarding remote work, noting he never formally requested such an accommodation. Instead, the district provided reasonable alternatives, exempting him from vaccination but requiring quarantine when exposed to COVID-19. 

The case underscores that voluntary resignation and failure to follow established accommodation procedures can defeat discrimination claims at the outset. 

Michigan Judge Reaffirms Dismissal of Retaliation Suit Over Single Use of Racial Slur 

A Michigan federal judge has reaffirmed her decision to dismiss a retaliation lawsuit brought by a former employee of LaFontaine Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram, finding that a single instance of racist language did not establish a valid Title VII or state-law retaliation claim. 

In Hackney v. LaFontaine Automotive Group LLC (No. 2:22-cv-12612), U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker denied Samuel Hackney’s motion for reconsideration of her September 2024 ruling granting summary judgment to the dealership. Hackney, who is Arab American, alleged that he was fired for protesting a supervisor’s racial slur. 

The court, however, found that Hackney’s opposition to one remark did not amount to “protected activity” under Title VII or Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Judge Parker stated that complaining about a single racist remark is not enough to establish a retaliation claim under Supreme Court precedent: “[n]otwithstanding the utter disrespect that this dehumanizing language conveys, case law precedent holds that it is not ‘conduct made unlawful’ under Title VII or ELCRA”. 

The dealership maintained that Hackney was terminated for repeated performance and attendance issues during his short tenure. Judge Parker further noted that the decision to fire Hackney was made by the general manager, not the supervisor who used the slur, undercutting any theory of retaliatory animus. 

The ruling highlights the high bar retaliation plaintiffs face, and that opposition to isolated workplace remarks may fail to constitute “protected activity” triggering anti-retaliation protections. 

Judge Dismisses Law Professor’s Federal Discrimination Suit Against University of Pennsylvania 

University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax has lost her federal discrimination claims against the school, with a federal judge ruling that she was disciplined for her repeated racist remarks, not because of her race. 

In Wax v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (No. 2:25-cv-00269), U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage dismissed Wax’s claims with prejudice, finding that her suspension and loss of privileges stemmed from offensive comments targeting racial minorities and same-sex relationships. The court emphasized that antidiscrimination laws protect individuals from being targeted based on protected characteristics, but “do not create a cause of action based on the content of speech.” 

Wax, a tenured professor since 2001, argued she was treated more harshly than other faculty members who allegedly made antisemitic remarks about Israel and Palestine. Judge Savage rejected this comparator argument, ruling that those statements were political in nature, while Wax’s were explicitly directed at minority groups within the university community. 

The opinion further noted that Wax failed to allege facts showing she was disciplined because she was white or Jewish. “She did not support any protected class,” Judge Savage wrote. “To characterize her comments as supportive of those she criticized and denigrated is not plausible.” 

The case serves as a reminder that federal anti-discrimination laws are not likely to serve a shield for offensive speech, even when the speaker claims unequal treatment. 

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.