The scope of what is considered to be “wrongdoing or waste” has been found to be relatively narrow by courts interpreting that statute, especially the U.S. District Court for the Middle of District of Pennsylvania. And the biggest hurdle to making a claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law is that the employer must be a “public body.”
In the November 10, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Aaron Peskin writes, “POWER Act—A Philadelphia Game Changer.”
It has been no secret that for many years, Pennsylvania has lagged behind its neighbors, particularly New Jersey, when it comes to protections for whistleblowing employees. While employees on both sides of the river enjoy the same federal whistleblower protections, the similarities end at the state level. New Jersey has the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). This statute covers all New Jersey employees and generally protects any employee that reports or objects to any sort of conduct that they believe to be illegal, unethical, or contrary to public policy. Pennsylvania meanwhile has the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law. While that law does protect employees that report conduct of “wrongdoing or waste.” However, the scope of what is considered to be “wrongdoing or waste” has been found to be relatively narrow by courts interpreting that statute, especially the U.S. District Court for the Middle of District of Pennsylvania. And the biggest hurdle to making a claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law is that the employer must be a “public body.” This means that unless your employer is either a public entity funded by Pennsylvania tax dollars or a private entity that receives public funds, you are out of luck. This stands in stark contrast to CEPA, where any employee can sue any employer for retaliation for reporting or objecting to a wide range of conduct. And New Jersey courts have interpreted that statute as broadly as possible to favor employees.
While Pennsylvania does not have particularly strong employee protections against retaliation, Philadelphia employees now enjoy protections similar to those employees across the river thanks to the “Protect Our Workers, Enforce Rights (POWER) Act.” This law was passed by Philadelphia City Council and signed by Mayor Cherelle Parker on May 27, 2025. This act made significant changes to Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code and greatly strengthened employee protections against retaliation.
Specifically, the POWER Act prohibits retaliation against any employee seeking to assert their rights under any “Worker Protection Ordinance,” which is broadly defined to a wide range of Philadelphia ordinances protecting workers, such as concerning wage theft, fair workweek standards, and protections for domestic workers. The protected activities are similarly broadly defined and include seeking information about one’s rights, discussing their rights with another person, objecting to or refusing to participate in any conduct that violates a worker protection ordinance, making an oral or written complaint to an employer, filing a complaint with any governmental agency or court, and providing evidence or participating in any court or administrative proceeding relating to a formal or informal complaint. The POWER Act also explicitly prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee that takes sick leave under the Philadelphia Sick Leave Law.
Perhaps most importantly, the POWER Act creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation when an employer takes an adverse employment action, such as firing, suspending, demoting or otherwise penalizing an employee, within 90 days of the protected activity. This effectively turns the relevant standard for retaliation on its ear. In New Jersey and when dealing with Federal statutes, 90 days is generally held to create an inference of retaliation, but one that is can be rebutted by the employer through a preponderance of the evidence to show legitimate non-retaliatory reason(s) for the adverse employment action. In Philadelphia, however, the employer must show the non-retaliatory reason(s) by way of clear and convincing evidence. This is a significantly higher bar than that in most other jurisdictions and employers should be mindful of this standard.
Beyond the retaliation protections the POWER Act is also a gamechanger in several other respects. First, the POWER Act has strengthened the Philadelphia Department of Labor’s Office of Worker Protections (OWP), empowering it to conduct proactive workplace investigations and to hold employers accountable for violations of Philadelphia ordinances, such as the paid sick leave law and the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights. It also allows the city to suspend or revoke business licenses and city procurement contracts of employers with repeated violations and requires the creation of a “bad actors database” that publicly lists employers with three or more violations. If OWP finds that employer has violated the POWER Act, the agency can seek civil penalties of $2,000 for each violation. Those fines will be paid into a Worker Justice Fund, which will give back to employees that have suffered monetarily, physically, or mentally as a result of retaliation.
Second, while the OWP has extensive enforcement power, an employee does not necessarily have to exercise their rights through that office. The POWER Act also creates a private right of action against an employer that violates that ordinance and they do not need to exhaust administrative remedies (such as reporting to OWP) before doing so. In doing so, employees can seek damages directly from the employer, which is a significant change from previous practices where penalties were directed solely to the City. Before filing suit, an employee must give the employer the opportunity to cure the alleged infraction within 15 days, but that requirement is waived for instances of retaliation. That means that an employee may file suit immediately after he or she believes that retaliation has taken place. The statute of limitations for a claim under the POWER Act is three years, which is significantly longer than most federal statutes and even two years beyond that permitted under CEPA.
Third, the POWER has strengthened protections for immigrant workers. It authorizes the OWP to certification applications and submit statements of interest on behalf of those workers, including those subject to unlawful retaliation, who may be eligible for a U Visa or T Visa under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act or for the Deferred Action Program.
Fourth, the POWER Act raises the hourly rate for paid sick leave for tipped workers under Philadelphia sick leave law. It is now calculated by taking the average of the hourly wage for “bartenders,” “waiters and waitresses,” and “dining room and cafeteria attendants and bartender helpers” as defined under the Standard Occupational Classification Code as published for Philadelphia County by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor.
Fifth, employers are now required to keep records of hours worked by employees and hours of sick time taken by an employee and payments made to the employee for sick time for three years rather than two. This comports with the new statute of limitations for bringing suit.
Finally, the POWER Act requires that employers provide notice to employees of their rights. While this notice does not have to be contained in the employee handbook, it does have to be provided in some format to all employees in Philadelphia.
Employers should be mindful of the heightened level of accountability that the POWER Act presents and should endeavor to maintain accurate records of hours worked and sick time, provide notice of rights to all employees, and carefully consider the POWER Act’s presumption of retaliation when making a determination as to whether to take an adverse employment action against an employee.
Employees should also familiarize themselves with the POWER Act, especially if they are inclined to report what they believe to be wrongdoing under the Act. Employees should determine if the conduct that they wish to complain about or report would qualify such a complaint or report as “protected activity” under the Act. Employees should also carefully consider whether it makes sense to report the conduct to the OWP, file a private lawsuit, or do both.
Ultimately, the POWER Act will likely lead to a significant increase in employment litigation at both the state and federal levels in Philadelphia, and employment attorneys practicing in Philadelphia should familiarize themselves with this game-changing statute.