Crites v. Hoogovens Technical Services Inc.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County
1Opinion of the Court
BAER, J.,
The Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. §260.1 et seq. does not define the term “employee(s).” Nevertheless, virtually all of its remedy provisions provide that such remedies shall inure to “employees.” In this matter, we are called upon to decide whether plaintiff, William E. Crites, should be considered an “employee” pursuant to the WPCL. If so, he should be permitted to pursue Count I of his action under the WPCL against defendants, Hoogovens Technical Services Inc. and W. Joseph Mol-lenauer Jr. If not, Count I should be dismissed in accordance with employers’…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Turner v. May Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Killian v. McCullochDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1995
- Faden v. deVitrySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
3Cited by3 opinions
- McGoldrick v. TruePosition, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- Buche v. Liventa Bioscience, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2015
- Morgan v. Arion Capital Management, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2022