A Philadelphia law firm successfully defends against paralegal’s overtime-pay claims amid new lawsuit alleging discrimination and harassment by a former paralegal.

In a recent legal dispute, a Philadelphia federal jury ruled in favor of Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, a prominent personal-injury law firm, in a case involving claims of unpaid overtime filed by a former paralegal. While the firm emerged victorious in court, it now faces renewed challenges in the form of another lawsuit from a different ex-paralegal.

Yanez Perez, who worked for Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky starting in 2022, has filed a federal lawsuit that accuses the firm of discrimination and retaliation. In her complaint submitted to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Perez, an Afro-Latina woman, alleges that inappropriate remarks regarding her appearance and intelligence were made by an IT analyst. She also claims that her supervising attorney engaged in inappropriate conversations about her personal life and exhibited unwanted romantic advances.

The lawsuit details incidents in which the supervising attorney allegedly invited Perez to social functions, suggesting that they would appear “cute” together. Following these experiences, Perez reported the behavior to the firm’s human resources department. However, the complaint alleges that she subsequently faced false accusations regarding a supposed romantic involvement with a managing attorney, an allegation that both parties deny as retaliatory.

Perez’s complaint underscores a culture within the firm that she describes as discriminatory, noting that employees reportedly made repeated racist and sexist comments. The situation reportedly led to Perez suffering from severe anxiety, prompting her to take a leave of absence in the summer of 2023 before ultimately resigning later that year.

In a statement, Michael Banks, an attorney representing Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, dismissed Perez’s allegations as baseless, asserting that the firm does not condone discrimination or harassment. He referenced the firm’s actions in terminating an employee accused of making inappropriate comments about Perez. Banks further indicated that the firm had cooperated with Perez’s requests for leave but asserted that she made the choice to resign.

The lawsuit surfaces shortly after a court victory for the firm in a separate case involving another former paralegal, Desiree Purvenas-Hayes. This individual had claimed owed overtime compensation of 0,000 and 0,000 in damages, stating her work frequently extended to 20-hour days during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The firm maintained that Purvenas-Hayes’s late hours stemmed from personal commitments during daytime hours, a point that a jury unanimously sided with last week.

The ongoing legal challenges have prompted the firm to reiterate its commitment to fair treatment and compensation for all employees, pushing back against the accusations while preparing to defend against the newly emerged lawsuit. As the case unfolds, it highlights the broader implications of workplace conduct and employee rights within the legal industry.

Media News Source