Margolis Edelstein



People

Practices

Results

Insights

Offices

Careers

Q

Legal Insights

Litigation Insights & Analysis

Public Employee & Free Speech Rights: Third Circuit’s Recent Analysis of Retaliation Claims

On September 8, 2025, the Third Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. of Tech., addressing First Amendment retaliation claims brought by public employees. The court analyzed the extent to which an employer may justify adverse employment actions by citing the need to promote the efficiency of public services, particularly when the employee’s speech, made in their capacity as a private citizen, touches on matters of public concern.

Federal Court Backs State Ruling: No Accommodation Required for Medical Marijuana Under Pennsylvania Human Relations Act

On March 7, 2025, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion and order dismissing with prejudice a plaintiff’s claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA) that a potential employer refused to reasonably accommodate his disabilities when it rescinded a job offer after a pre-employment drug screen returned a positive result for marijuana.

Federal Court Rules Future Medical Expenses Recoverable Under Pennsylvania’s MVFRL

A recent opinion by U.S. District Judge Gerald McHugh of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that §1722 of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law does not bar recovery of future medical expenses in motor vehicle liability cases. The MVFRL, which is codified as 75 Pa. C.S. 1701, et seq., precludes the recovery of damages for medical expenses in cases where these expenses are  “paid or payable” by certain types of insurance.

In a Big Win for Employers, SCOTUS Confirms They Need Only Meet the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard to Demonstrate an FLSA Exemption

On January 15, 2025, in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a circuit split concerning the standard of proof an employer must satisfy to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In a 9-0 decision, the Court held that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies.

PA Superior Court Reverses Course to Allow Liability Coverage and UIM Coverage Under the Same Policy

On January 3rd, 2025, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a plaintiff may recover both liability coverage and underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage from the same policy. See Erie Ins. Exch. v. Baluch, 2025 PA Super 2. This represents a departure from precedent established by Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 370 Pa. Super. 51 (1988), and Newkirk v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 388 Pa. Super. 54 (1989), cases which for nearly four decades have stood for the proposition that liability coverage and UIM coverage cannot come from the same policy. The Baluch decision challenges long held and widely accepted interpretations of both the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) and the concept of stacking.
No results found.