PITTSBURGH – A nursing home employee who alleged that the managing companies of the facility engaged in false advertising and categorical underpayment of their “Weekend Warrior”-level staff, now maintains that the case should retain jurisdiction in Allegheny County.
Rochelle Spratley of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 15 versus Quest Healthcare Development, Inc. and William Penn Health Care Associates, LP, both of Jeannette.
“At all times relevant to this matter, defendants operated the William Penn Continuing Care Campus. The campus maintains a nursing home and a senior living facility in addition to providing other nursing services. In order to obtain staff for its facility, defendant created and advertised a program known as ‘Weekend Warriors.’ The defendants advertise: “WE ARE ALSO OFFERING OUR WEEKEND WARRIOR PROGRAM – WORK 2-16 HOUR SHIFTS AND GET PAID FOR 40 HOURS!” the suit said.
“In the spring of 2020, plaintiff applied for a ‘Weekend Warrior’ position and was offered the same by defendants. Defendants offered plaintiff an hourly wage of at least $18 per hour. As set forth above, defendants describe the additional eight hours of pay as ‘Baylor pay equal to four hours per day.’ Thereafter, plaintiff worked two one-hour shifts each weekend and continues to work through the present date, with few exceptions. From the spring of 2020 until the fall of 2021, despite numerous requests, defendants failed to pay plaintiff the additional eight hours as promised under the ‘Weekend Warrior’ program.”
The suit said the plaintiff is informed and therefore avers that she is not the only ‘Weekend Warrior’ to whom defendants have failed to tender ‘Baylor pay.’
“In addition, defendants only paid plaintiff an hourly rate of $16 from the spring of 2020 until January 2022, in spite of entering into a contract with her to pay her wages of at least $18. In the fall of 2021, defendants began paying plaintiff ‘Baylor pay.’ However, the rate of ‘Baylor pay’ defendants paid plaintiff was typically in the amount of $125, which is less than eight hours of the hourly rate of $16/hour defendants paid to plaintiff. Moreover, defendants have refused to compensate plaintiff at the rate of $18 in spite of entering into a contract with plaintiff for the same,” the suit stated.
“In or around January 2022, defendants increased plaintiff’s hourly rate to $18.50/hour for her work as a ‘Weekend Warrior.’ However, defendants only paid plaintiff ‘Baylor pay’ in the amount of $135. Plaintiff’s ‘Baylor pay’ should have been $148. Plaintiff is informed and therefore avers that defendants pay each ‘Weekend Warrior’ of her experience and skill level ‘Baylor pay’ of $135, which is less than their promised rate of pay. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that defendants have engaged in a widespread practice of underpaying their ‘Weekend Warriors’ in violation of their contracts and in violation of Pennsylvania law.”
On Oct. 17, the defendants filed preliminary objections raising questions of venue, seeking the case to be transferred to the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas.
“William Penn operates a continuing care retirement community, as licensed by the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance, in Penn Township, Westmoreland County and includes a skilled nursing facility (Care Center) and an independent and assisted living facility (Senior Suites). Plaintiff worked in-person at William Penn’s skilled nursing facility in Penn Township, Westmoreland County from April 2020 to the present. Plaintiff completed and submitted her onboarding paperwork in Penn Township, Westmoreland County,” the objections stated, in part.
“There is no basis for Allegheny County to be the venue of plaintiff’s suit against William Penn. Quest is the managing general partner and majority owner of William Penn. Plaintiff was not and is not employed by Quest. William Penn employed plaintiff at all relevant times. Quest does not conduct business in Allegheny County ‘so continuous and sufficient to be termed general or habitual’ and thus lacks the quantity of acts necessary for venue to be proper in Allegheny County. Nor does Quest conduct business of sufficient ‘quality’ in Allegheny County for venue to be proper there; ‘quality’ refers to ‘directly furthering, or essential to, corporate objects; they do not include incidental acts.”
The defense added that Quest does not own or operate any business facilities in Allegheny County and does not engage in business there, and therefore, is no basis for Allegheny County to be the venue in this case, over Westmoreland County.
UPDATE
Through an opposing brief filed on Nov. 3, plaintiff counsel presented its argument for why the case should stay in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.
“Defendants’ preliminary objections should be overruled. Defendants have already litigated and lost on this exact same issue in another proceeding in this Court. In addition, the basis for this Court’s previous overruling of defendants’ venue objection remains as controlling authority at the present time. For ease of reading, plaintiff addressing the controlling authority first and then addresses how and why defendants are precluded from re-litigating this issue a second time,” according to the brief.
“It is neither overly burdensome nor unfair for employers to face venue for unpaid wages in the home counties of their employees. First, as is the case here, the unpaid employee is likely to reside in an immediately adjacent county. As such, the burden of venue is de minimus if existent at all. Second, counties have strong governmental interests in ensuring their residents are paid the wages they are owed. Counties and their encompassed municipalities often tax the wages of their employees. In addition, these counties will bear the brunt of any social harm caused by the ensuing poverty of an unpaid employee. It is therefore clear that an employer can cause harm outside of the county in which it operates by failing to pay its out of county employees.”
Plaintiff counsel added that if the Court “was inclined to explore whether defendants have sufficient contacts in Allegheny County, they request leave to conduct discovery on the same.”
For counts of violating the Wage Payment Collection Law, breach of employment contract and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff is seeking all wages due under the WPCL, equitable relief and damages in excess of $50,000, plus attorney’s fees, interest and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by David M. Kobylinski and Peter T. Kobylinski of Praetorian Law Group, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Alexander W. Brown of Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek & Eck, in Greensburg.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-011528
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com