Get access to the exclusive HR Resources you need to succeed in 2018!
Training, policies and tools to help HR prevent and respond to harassment claims.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
In a ruling issued Dec. 21, 2015, a trial court judge held that the city of Pittsburgh did not have the authority under state law to enact the Paid Sick Days Ordinance that Pittsburgh's City Council passed on Aug. 3, 2015. It remains to be seen whether the city of Pittsburgh will appeal this decision.
After the city of Pittsburgh passed the ordinance, which would require employers to provide employees with a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave for every 35 hours an employee works in the city limits, a group that included the Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging Association and several local restaurants and businesses challenged the city's authority to enact such legislation.
The challenge was based on the fact that under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh is a home rule charter municipality. Under state law, "a municipality which adopts a home rule charter shall not determine duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations and employers . . . except as expressly provided by the statutes which are applicable in every part of this Commonwealth or which are applicable to all municipalities or to a class or classes of municipalities." Citing an earlier Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling, the trial court found that the ordinance imposed a requirement on employers and therefore was invalid and unenforceable.
The city of Pittsburgh had argued that state law permits cities to pass ordinances relating to disease prevention and control, but the trial court noted that the provision of state law that the city relied upon applies only to municipalities that have boards of health or a department of health. Pittsburgh has neither.
It is unclear whether the city will appeal. In the meantime, the judge's order staying the enforcement of the ordinance until at least March 11, 2016, remains in place.
Mark Phillis is an attorney in the Pittsburgh office of Littler. Republished with permission. © 2015 LIttler. All rights reserved.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Save $450 off onsite member rates when you register by 2/2
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies