The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Western District, on July 17, 2019, overturned the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas decision that the City of Pittsburgh's Paid Sick Days Act (PSDA) is invalid and unenforceable. Instead, the High Court explained that "asked to consider whether these ordinances run afoul of the qualified statutory preclusion of local regulations that burden business," it held "that the PSDA does not exceed those limitations."

Mayor William Peduto issued the following statement on the High Court's ruling:

"Guaranteeing paid sick leave is a huge win for those who live and work in Pittsburgh.?As I've long said, people should not be forced into the making the tough decision between staying home sick and missing a day's pay or coming in to work and spreading infection.?I want to thank the Supreme Court for affirming Pittsburgh's statutory powers to do what's best for our people, and the four Pittsburgh City Council members who sponsored the 2015 Paid Sick Days Act: Corey O'Connor, Natalia Rudiak, Deb Gross and the Rev. Ricky Burgess."

According to a representative of Pittsburgh's Office of the City Controller, the decision is under review and the Office will release further information in the future, including the effective date by which Pittsburgh employers must start complying with the ordinance. (Email response to inquiry, July 31, 2019.)

We will issue another Alert when further information is available.

Ordinance details

As we reported, the ordinance originally passed in 2015 and was to become effective on January 11, 2016. Under the ordinance Pittsburgh employers with 15 or more employees are required to provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave per year (24 hours for employees with fewer than 15 employees). Employees must accrue a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave for every 35 hours worked within Pittsburgh (up to the maximum of 40/24 hours per year), unless the employer's policy is more generous. (EY Payroll Newsflash, Vol. 16, 237, 8-31-15.)

Prior to the January 11, 2016, effective date, the lower court found that the ordinance was invalid and unenforceable. The lower court ruled that as a "home rule municipality," the City of Pittsburgh is prohibited by state law from regulating businesses by "determining their duties, responsibilities or requirements."

Because the PSDA placed affirmative duties on businesses, occupations and employers, the lower court found that the Act exceeded the City's authority as a home rule municipality. (EY Payroll Newsflash, Vol. 17,014, 1-14-16.)

Go here for an explanation of the ordinance as provided in 2016 and here for the original poster employers were required to display in a conspicuous place.

———————————————

———————————————
ATTACHMENT

EY Payroll News Flash