Thursday, September 30, 2010

"Chocolate Delicious" and Man-on-Man Harassment - COTW #9

This week's employment law Case of the Week is an EEOC action filed in the Eastern District of PA against Cintas Corporation. It includes allegations of sexual harassment by a man against his male co-workers, a phenomenon which is reportedly on the rise. The EEOC reported this week that it settled the racial and sexual harassment suit for $152,500.

The allegations against a supervisor at the company's Conshohocken facility read like a what not to do list:
[The] supervisor’s unlawful harassment included: fondling the buttocks of class members; exposing his private parts and asking class members to expose their private parts to him; requesting sexual favors; and discussing his sexual exploits and sexual activities he would like to perform.
There were also allegations of racial harassment, including "calling black employees nicknames using some derivation of 'chocolate' such as 'chocolate delicious.'"

Yeah, these sound like Title VII violations to me. This case is a little different for a few reasons, making it a great COTW:

  • Well, obviously the violations are egregious;
  • It ended in settlement, a common outcome that often eludes media coverage;
  • It features man-on-man sexual harassment which is on the rise but not often discussed; and
  • It was an EEOC action.
Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Not Just for Women - The Paycheck Fairness Act

As I noted yesterday, the push is on to enact the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA). The commentary on this proposed piece of legislation has focused almost entirely on women. And why wouldn't it?

Reading the text of the bill, we see that the findings relate to women, and the most prominent amendments apply to the Equal Pay Act (EPA). The EPA being a section of the FLSA (enough acronyms yet?) prohibiting differences in pay on "the basis of sex." But wait! There's more!

Wage Information-Sharing
The PFA will amend the antiretaliation provision of the FLSA to protect an employee who "has inquired about, discussed or disclosed the wages of the employee or another employee." This will facilitate and protect the sharing of wage information between employees, calling attention to disparities.... and not just differences between men's and women's wages. Once other disparities are discovered, the discrimination claims will likely follow (under another statute, other than EPA).

EEOC Information Gathering
The PFA also commands the EEOC to "issue regulations to provide for the collection of pay information data from employers as described by the sex, race, and national origin of employees." Again, we have another provision aimed at finding pay disparities beyond just those between men and women.

The sections of the PFA noted above have one thing in common: information gathering. Among employees, and by the EEOC. Inevitably, some disparities will be discovered. Once they are, what will happen next? For employers, a likely increase in discrimination litigation, beyond just sex-based claims. Long term? Maybe even new legislation.

We shall see... or not (if the PFA is never signed into law).

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Push is On for the Paycheck Fairness Act

My latest post on ELinfonet is up: Push for the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Death of the "Any Other Factor" Defense. It covers the pending legislation and its impact on the existing Equal Pay Act. Specifically it details the proposed switch from the "any other factor" defense to the "bona fide factor" defense.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Initial Thoughts on Location-Based Social Networking

This weekend, I finally broke down and purchased an iPhone 4. So far, I love it. It makes it a snap to Tweet photos on the road (like this one from Beaver Stadium), and I can easily put new photos and posts on the Lawffice Space Tumblr (like this one of Justice Breyer's new book). One thing that I just couldn't do until now was participate in GPS or location-based social networks like Foursquare and Facebook Places. Here are my initial thoughts:

It's Fun!
There's something strangely addictive about pulling up my location on my cell phone and "checking-in" at local places. And Foursquare provides points and badges - I have no idea if they have any actual value but they're fun too.

Find Your Friends
If your friends are on there, you can see if they're in the same area as you. For example, if I go downtown to watch the Steelers game, I can check to see if any of my friends are at one of the downtown spots. Or, I was at Beaver Stadium this Saturday and I could have (if I had any friends on Foursquare yet) seen if any of my old buddies were back in town for the game. In short, there's some networking potential here.

Interact with Businesses
Some businesses offer special deals for people who check-in on Foursquare. Also, if the businesses keep an eye on who's checking in with them, they can see that you're one of their (frequent) customers. If nothing else, it lets the others on the site know that you're out and about and active. I see some (frankly, not a lot at this point) marketing potential.

Who Cares?
Sometimes, people just don't care what you're doing. Foursquare allows you to share your check-ins via Twitter, and this morning I tweeted to my 1,162 followers that I was at McDonald's for breakfast. I'm pretty sure 1,161 of them didn't care (the exception being my wife who was eagerly awaiting my delivery of her fruit cup). You can disable the auto-tweet though.

Security and Privacy
I don't think it takes a genius to see that you need to be very careful about telling people when you're not home.

I've only been doing this for one day, so the "fun factor" may be short-lived. Somehow, I don't see myself finding the new badges fun after 6 months. But we shall see...

From a marketing and networking stand point, I'm just not seeing the instant return I got from Twitter. Looong-time Lawffice Space readers may recall (in the first week of publication!) my amazement when I announced my then-new blog via Twitter only to have it retweeted to several thousand people. I don't see that instant gratification here. That said, it's fun and requires only (literally) the push of a button when you go somewhere to play these location-based games. So, I'll keep doing it for now and let you know of any developments.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Obsession with Nurse and EAP Recommendation not "Regarded As" Disability - COTW #8

Is obsession with a co-worker a disability? When an employer refers an employee to an assistance program, does that establish that the employer regards the employee as having a disability? The case of the week is Hobson v. St. Luke's Hospital, 2010 WL 3220365 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 12, 2010). It's an employment discrimination case with several claims, but I'm going to focus solely on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim.

The Plaintiff had a rather odd relationship with a co-worker, a nurse at St. Luke's. He left her flowers, gave her a note complimenting her on how she was dressed, and eventually left a note with a blank check for the nurse to give to a charity. It's tough to tell from the opinion what was really going on here, but the nurse didn't like it and called the police. The Plaintiff was then terminated for allegations of sexual harassment.

How does the ADA factor into all of this? Under the ADA, you can bring a discrimination claim if you are "regarded as" having a disability. An administrator told the Plaintiff that "he had an obsession problem which was a serious mental illness and he should seek help." The Court declined to recognize this as a "regarded as" disability.

In addition to the comments about his obsession, the administrator also advised the Plaintiff to seek counseling through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and gave him a brochure and documents related to the problem. The Court again held that this did not demonstrate that the employer regarded him as disabled.

I'm going to guess that employers don't lose a lot of sleep over whether one employee's obsession with a co-worker constitutes a disability (although, similar mental health issues could lead to this result). The more important point here is that EAP programs, which are common, will not necessarily establish that the employer regards the employee as disabled. This should help ensure that employers continue to provide resources to help employees in need.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

They Know Who You (and your employees) Are!

It started with a post on Joe.My.God about the Don't Ask Don't Tell cloture vote. A commenter leaves a comment: "All faggots must die." Joe, turns to his readers to see if they can track down the commenter by posting the IP address from which the comment came.

The readers quickly accepted the challenge and determined that it came from a U.S. Senate network. They then determined the approximate geographic location which just so happened to be the offices of two United States senators. And, within one day, the story is on the front page of Senator Chambliss now admits that the comment appeared to come from his office. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before IT tracks the exact computer and the exact user.

They know who you are! Whether it's newer social media like Facebook and Twitter, or "classics" like good ole' fashioned blog comments, your identity can be tracked. Your network domain name ordinarily includes your employer's name. It presents a problem for employers and employees.

Some lessons:

  • Employers: Internet and social media policies need to address commenting/publication from work computers (caveat: public employers have First Amendment concerns, so draft carefully)
  • Employees: Don't post stupid things on the Internet at work!

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Attorney-Expert Witness Correspondence Held Discoverable

UPDATE 11/30/2010: The Superior Court has withdrawn the opinion and granted en banc review in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital.

On September 16, 2010, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that correspondence between an attorney and an expert witness who the attorney intends to call at trial is discoverable. Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, 2010 PA Super 170 (Sep. 16, 2010). This will come as quite a shock to attorneys who believed that they were free to discuss strategy with expert witnesses without the fear of it ending up in enemy hands.

The decision attempted to strike a balance between the Pennsylvania attorney work-product rule, Pa. R. Civ. P. 4003.3, and the rule providing for discovery of the knowledge and opinions of experts, 4003.5. The Court announced a "bright line" rule that "attorney work-product must yield to the disclosure of the basis of a testifying expert’s opinion." The party opposing discovery argued that the trial court should at the very least perform in camera review of the correspondence. The Superior Court held this "unnecessary."

This case is a personal injury action, actually arising from a cafeteria chair collapsing beneath the guy sitting in it. It's amazing how random little events can lead to major developments in the law! But nothing in the opinion limits the holding to injury actions, so it's an important decision for all lawyers (yes, this is the tenuous employment law tie-in for the day), including employment lawyers.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

3rd Cir. Strikes Down Hazleton, PA Immigration Law - COTW # 7

Last week, the Third Circuit struck down several immigration reform ordinances promulgated by Hazleton, Pennsylvania. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 07-3531, 2010 WL 3504538 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2010). The ordinances included employment provisions that made it unlawful for businesses to hire an "unlawful worker," including unauthorized aliens. The ordinances also compelled employers to use e-verify by providing safe harbor from the hiring provisions for employers who used it, or requiring enrollment for reinstatement of certain licenses.

The problem, is that the ordinances were arguably preempted by federal law, the Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The Court emphasized that Congress, in passing the IRCA, sought to achieve a "careful balance" by "effectively deterring employment of unauthorized aliens, minimizing the resulting burden on employers, and protecting authorized aliens and citizens perceived as 'foreign' from discrimination." I'll spare you the gory details of the 188 page opinion, and just tell you that the Court found that the employment provisions of the local ordinances were preempted.

In case you don't watch the news, state and local immigration reform has become a big deal lately. This case largely settles some major issues regarding state and local employment immigration laws in the Third Circuit, including Pennsylvania. This could provide some consistency in our Circuit as one Circuit under the federal law.

Employers shouldn't get too comfortable though, because Supreme Court action looms... SCOTUS granted cert in the Ninth Circuit case, Chicanos Por La Causa Inc. v. Napolitano, which upheld similar ordinances in Arizona. The Third Circuit was pretty critical of that decision.

For some fantastic analysis on this case from a fellow employment law blogger, see The Delaware Employment Law Blog's 3d Cir. Finds Anti-Illegal-Alien Ordinance Unconstitutional.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Mifflin County Added to Pennsylvania Courthouses Photo Album

I went to the Mifflin County Court of Common Pleas in Lewistown, PA last week, and I grabbed some pictures for the Pennsylvania Courthouses Photo Album!

Click here to view only the Mifflin County photos in the Lawffice Space Tumblr.

Click here to view the photo album on Picasa.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

The ABA Blawg 100 is Back!

The ABA Journal creates a "Blawg 100" list every year with the "100 best legal blogs." My readers may recall that last year's list featured a number of employment law blogs. I'd like to see that continue in 2010. So, what can you do to help?

The ABA Journal is requesting Blawg 100 Amici. You can go to that site and recommend your favorite blawg. This is not a shameless plug to get you to write-in Lawffice Space... OK, it's mostly a shameless plug to get you to write-in Lawffice Space... but it's also a call to let the ABA Journal know which employment law blogs are your favorites.  There are a lot of great ones out there.

For what it's worth, I read the emplaw blogs from last year's list pretty regularly and believe they're all fine selections. This year, I submitted an amicus for Ohio Employer's Law Blog by Jon Hyman. Voting ends October 1, 2010.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

"Honest Mistake" as "Willful Misconduct" in Pennsylvania UC

In Oliver v. UCBR, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that a preschool teacher's "honest mistake" could constitute "willful misconduct." In PA, former employees are ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits when terminated for "willful misconduct" making this an important holding for Pennsylvania workers.

The "mistake" was losing track of a child in her preschool class. The teacher claims she tripped and fell on her way outside, and as she regained her composure one child had gone back into the room without her realizing it. The teacher's supervisor approached her on the playground and asked her how many kids she had with her. The teacher answered "six," indicating that she believed to have all of her children with her. Of course, she was wrong, and thankfully the supervisor had the sixth child by that point.

I will note that this was the second incident that month in which the teacher violated the school's 100% supervision policy (all kids supervised at all times). The kids were two(!) so obviously it's important that someone supervise them.

For me, the most telling passage was:
The Board did not find credible Claimant’s excuse that she left the child in the playroom by accident. The Board concluded that Claimant intentionally failed to observe the whereabouts of the children in her care and failed to show good cause for the violation of Employer’s rule of 100% supervision.
The "Board" is the UCBR which is the ultimate finder of fact in these matters. My take: this case is primarily about the deference due to determinations of the UCBR. Further, the UCBR found it difficult to believe that someone could actually be trying to watch six kids and just trip, lose one, and not even realize it.

However, there's a crucial note at the end of the opinion: "Even if her actions constituted an honest mistake, it would not justify the violation of Employer's rule." The Court noted that the employee would have realized her mistake of losing a child had she just counted the children upon regaining her balance. She knew the rule, but didn't follow it, and therefore she gets no UC. But does this case stand for the proposition that "honest mistake is no excuse?"

My interpretation: had she been following the rule and accounting for the children, the "honest mistake" of tripping and losing sight of one of the kids would have been discovered immediately. I think this case comes out differently in that situation. While no one thinks she intentionally abandoned the child, she knew the rule and didn't obey it. And while this case will likely be applied in a variety of employment contexts, this led to a  two-year old left alone, making "whoops" a little less tolerable.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Lawffice Space Redesign

Dear Lawffice Space readers,

I feel like I need one of those "Pardon Our Dust" signs that you see in stores getting renovations. As Lawffice Space readers who actually visit the website have no doubt already noticed, I recently implemented the first redesign of the website. If you're consuming the content via email, Facebook, reader (or something else), stop by the site and take a look:

I want to emphasize that the content will remain the same. The changes are primarily cosmetic, in an effort to clean up the site and make it look more professional. One functional change about which I am extremely excited is the integration of the Lawffice Space Tumblr into a page on the main site. The Lawffice Space Tumblr is a place where I can post quick hits that are too short for a full blog entry, or fun entries that are not really on-point with the employment law theme of the main blog.

I continue to use the Twitter tweetmeme button and Facebook Like button which you can find on the top of each post. I switched to the compact versions of these buttons to keep the site a little cleaner. The Facebook Share functionality is still here! But, it's now in the footer of each post. Same with the Google Buzz functionality.

FEEDBACK WELCOME! Please drop a comment if you have any questions, concerns, comments, criticisms, etc. As always, thank you for reading.

-Phil Miles

Friday, September 10, 2010

3rd Circuit Addresses Commission Exception to FLSA - COTW #6

In honor of Lawffice Space's Labor Week, the Third Circuit issued its first opinion on the commission exception to the FLSA on Tuesday. OK, it might be a coincedence. The case is Parker v. Nutrisystem, Inc., 09-3545, 2010 WL 3465054 (3d Cir. Sept. 7, 2010).

Generally, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay their employees overtime. And overtime is 1.5 times the employee's usual pay for time spent over 40 hours per week. But, there are exceptions - for example, retail employees who are paid a bona fide commission rate.

Compensation Method
Nutrisystem paid its call center sales associates a flat rate per sale of any Nutrisystem product regardless of price (there was also a wage option, but it rarely applied). The flat rate across products was based on whether the sales associate made the sale on an incoming or outgoing call and the time of day of the sale. The plaintiffs, with support from the Department of Labor, argued that a "commission" should be a percentage of sales price.

The Third Circuit held that Nutrisystem's pay system qualified as a "commission" and therefore complied with the FLSA. The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Nutrisystem.

Judge Cowen issued a dissent in which he argued that the Court should show a little deference to the ole' DOL. And Nutrisystem, "has not demonstrated that the flat-rate fees are proportionally related to the cost to the customer." And therefore, he would have reversed the trial court.

In the Third Circuit, a compensation system does not need to be mathematically based on the final sales price to fall under the FLSA's commission exception. But, the Court did note the similar pricing of all of Nutrisystem's products at issue. And therefore, the compensation method was "sufficiently proportional to the cost to the consumer to qualify as commission." This suggests that there must be at least some level of proportionality, but exactly what level remains to be seen.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Mini-Wagners: State Labor Relations Acts

Labor Week continues...

When analyzing labor law, the first place to start is often the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act (for its sponsor Senator Robert Wagner). 29 USC §§ 151-169.  This 1935 law governs labor-management relations in areas such as union creation and strikes. But, it's important to remember that some states enacted their own state labor relations acts in this era, aka "mini-Wagners."

My state, Pennsylvania, is a great example. Pennsylvania enacted the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act in 1937, creating the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB). 43 P.S. § 211.4. The PLRB is probably best known for its role in enforcing the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA).

Sidenote: PERA often leads to confusion on two fronts - 1. Yes, it is "employe" with one E - not employee; 2. Pennsylvania also has a state constitutional amendment providing for "equal rights" - aka the Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment; aka PERA.

The NLRA does not cover every worker, for example, state workers, so the PLRB steps in. But, and this may come as a shock to some, the PLRB also covers private sector employment. Per the PLRB website: "The board's private sector jurisdiction is limited to employers and their employes not covered by the National Labor Relations Act, for the most part only small local businesses."

The takeaway from this is simple: If you have a labor issue that's not covered by the NLRA, remember that states often step in to fill the gaps.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Charting the Growth of Labor Law

Labor Week continues here on Lawffice Space with this visual representation of the growth of labor law. Labor and employment law is derived from many sources, such as common law, contracts, the U.S. Constitution, federal regulations, state laws (and constitutions and regulations)... and federal legislation, aka statutes, aka U.S. Code. In particular, Title 29 - Labor.

I'm currently reading the updated-for-2009 Employment Law in a Nutshell. It contains a great measure of the growth of law:
The 1952 edition of United States Code (the official edition) included a Title 29 (Labor) that occupied 58 pages and ended with section 262; by 1970, its 149 pages concluded with section 678; the 1988 edition version of Title 29 was 578 pages in length. The 712 pages of the 2000 edition go through section 3058.
P. 36. I thought it would be fun to chart the number of pages to help visualize the growth:

And in case you're wondering, per the Nutshell: "Case law growth has been similar." By comparison, $58 in 1952 would have the same buying power as about $377 in 2000 (per .gov inflation calculator).

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Happy Labor Day! - Labor Week on Lawffice Space

Well, it's Labor Day... and this is an employment law blog... so I guess we should celebrate. And celebrate we will. But a day is just not sufficient, so here at Lawffice Space we will be celebrating with Labor Week!

As today is a federal holiday (see 5 U.S.C. § 6103), we'll keep this post focused on the holiday itself. Last year, I wrote a history of Labor Day. This year, I'd like to focus on some great content provided by the Department of Labor.

For starters, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis recorded a "State of the American Worker" address, embedded here:

For my email readers, if you cannot see the video click here to view online. It's a pretty high-level overview with sound bites like, "I will not stop working until every American is back on their feet." It's still nice to hear directly from the Department on their views and goals. And she does identify some specific initiatives as well.

The Department also created a great page on Labor Day History, including a look back in photos. Did you know that the first labor day celebration was attended by 25,000 union members and their families, police were concerned about riots, and there were kegs in "every conceivable place?" Do you know the true origins of "Rosie the Riveter?" And who actually invented Labor Day? It's all on the DOL's tribute page.

Hopefully this whets your appetite for a week's worth of labor posts. Check back each day this week for a new post!

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Friday, September 3, 2010

Hooters Weight Discrimination - COTW #5

This week's employment law Case of the Week is Smith v. Hooters (Complaint .pdf). Cassandra Smith claims the purveyor of wings and beer placed her on "weight probation." At the time, Ms. Smith avers that she was 5'8 and the grotesque, unsightly weight of 132.5 pounds (it's only out of an abundance of caution that I explicitly label this "sarcasm").

But wait, you may be thinking, "since when is 'weight' a protected characteristic in employment law?" Behold, one of the many dangers of state laws... they prohibit different types of discrimination from state to state (and sometimes even city to city). Michigan's Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination with respect to weight (and height FTR).

My state, Pennsylvania, does not prohibit weight discrimination per se. That's probably true for most other states as well. But, that does not mean employers are in the clear. First, it could be gender discrimination (which Smith alleges due to remarks about a "Hooters Girl"). Holding women to a certain weight standard that doesn't apply to men would be a potential claim. In the right situation, I think a good lawyer could also cobble together an ADA, maybe even GINA, claim. Although, the 132.5 pound waitress probably isn't that case.

The WSJ Law Blog reports that Smith's lawsuit (and a second waitress's) survived a motion to dismiss. Although, it sounds like the only issue was an arbitration agreement, not the weight discrimination. As of this date, there has been no finding of liability or any holding that Hooters actually discriminated on the basis of weight.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Facebook and Hiring - A German Ban?

The New York Times reports, Germany Plans Limits on Facebook Use in Hiring. According to the NYT, the draft of a new German workplace privacy law would:
[A]llow managers to search for publicly accessible information about prospective employees on the Web and to view their pages on job networking sites, like LinkedIn or Xing. But it would draw the line at purely social networking sites like Facebook.
I don't know much anything about German privacy law, but I guess "privacy" can include content voluntarily disclosed on the Internet?

Are there legitimate reasons for wanting see a potential employee's Facebook page? Sure. Imagine these status updates (in some cases, I didn't use much imagination - they really happened, albeit on Twitter):
  1. Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.
  2. Called in hungover again today.
  3. Dam my employer is retarted.
Of course, these updates contain bad content, but they also reflect poor judgment.

Even in the United States, using social media in the hiring process is not without its risks though. Sure, there's no ban, but employers should be careful that they are not targeting certain applicants based on forbidden characteristics. Even nondiscriminatory social media policies may lead to discrimination claims if the process has a disparate impact.

Finally, the employer may discover information that could be the basis for a discrimination claim. As a consequence, Employers may lose the "ignorance defense." For example, an applicant claims religious discrimination; the employer claims it doesn't even know his religion; the applicant says "It's right there on my Facebook page!"

I don't see a U.S. ban on Facebook-screening anytime soon, but employers should still be careful how they use it.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.