Litigation
Equal Justice
We successfully represented a non-profit social services organization and a group of aggrieved individuals who challenged the constitutionality of the employment-prohibiting provisions of Pennsylvania’s Older Adult Protective Services Act (“OAPSA”), 35 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 10225.101 - 10225.5102. Provisions of OAPSA prohibited all felons and many misdemeanants from ever holding any job in residential care facilities throughout the Commonwealth.
Shareholder Peter LeVan and a former colleague (together with a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor and lawyers at Community Legal Services) represented the plaintiffs. Mr. LeVan and a former colleague litigated a preliminary injunction hearing before a judge of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. The matter was then argued before the en banc Commonwealth Court, which struck down the provisions at issue as unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The Commonwealth appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and was again argued on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that OAPSA’s employment-prohibiting provisions failed even the highly deferential rational basis test, noting that the law “does not bear a real and substantial relationship to the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting the elderly, disabled and infirm from victimization, and therefore unconstitutionally infringes upon the employees’ right to pursue an occupation.”
In recognition of their extraordinary work on the matter, Mr. LeVan and our former colleague received the 2004 Equal Justice Award from Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.
Shareholder Peter LeVan and a former colleague (together with a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor and lawyers at Community Legal Services) represented the plaintiffs. Mr. LeVan and a former colleague litigated a preliminary injunction hearing before a judge of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. The matter was then argued before the en banc Commonwealth Court, which struck down the provisions at issue as unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The Commonwealth appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and was again argued on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that OAPSA’s employment-prohibiting provisions failed even the highly deferential rational basis test, noting that the law “does not bear a real and substantial relationship to the Commonwealth’s interest in protecting the elderly, disabled and infirm from victimization, and therefore unconstitutionally infringes upon the employees’ right to pursue an occupation.”
In recognition of their extraordinary work on the matter, Mr. LeVan and our former colleague received the 2004 Equal Justice Award from Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.