<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Aaron L. Peskin Archives &#8212; Kang Haggerty News</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.khflaw.com/news/publications/lawyer/aaron-l-peskin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link></link>
	<description>Published By Kang Haggerty LLC</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 16:49:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Legal Intelligencer: POWER Act—A Philadelphia Game Changer</title>
		<link>https://www.khflaw.com/news/legal-intelligencer-power-act-a-philadelphia-game-changer/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aaron L. Peskin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 16:34:56 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Intelligencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philadelphia]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.khflaw.com/news/?p=7265</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[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 [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>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.”</em></p>
<p>In the November 10, 2025 edition of<a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer"> The Legal Intelligencer</a>, Aaron Peskin writes, &#8220;<a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2025/11/10/power-acta-philadelphia-game-changer/?slreturn=20251111113425">POWER Act—A Philadelphia Game Changer</a>.&#8221;<span id="more-7265"></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <i>clear and convincing</i> evidence. This is a significantly higher bar than that in most other jurisdictions and employers should be mindful of this standard.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div class="mb-4">
<div class="article-font-size">
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<div><b>Aaron L. Peskin</b><i>, senior counsel at Kang Haggerty,</i> <i>is a seasoned attorney whose practice spans complex commercial litigation, employment law, and general corporate matters. He brings a strategic, client-focused approach to a wide range of legal matters, drawing on deep experience across multiple industries and legal forums.</i></div>
<div><strong><em>Reprinted with permission from the November 10, 2025 edition of “The Legal Intelligencer” © 2025 ALM Global, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. Request academic re-use from <a class="text-blue-800 underline hover:no-underline" href="https://www.copyright.com/">www.copyright.com.</a> All other uses, submit a request to <a class="text-blue-800 underline hover:no-underline" href="mailto: asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com">asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.</a> For more information visit <a class="text-blue-800 underline hover:no-underline" href="https://www.law.com/asset-and-logo-licensing/">Asset &amp; Logo Licensing</a>.</em></strong></div>
<div class="mb-4">
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">7265</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Intelligencer: Where Do I Have to Go to Get a Decent Beer?—State of Taprooms in Pa. and NJ in 2025</title>
		<link>https://www.khflaw.com/news/legal-intelligencer-where-do-i-have-to-go-to-get-a-decent-beer-state-of-taprooms-in-pa-and-nj-in-2025/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aaron L. Peskin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 15:40:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Transactions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Intelligencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.khflaw.com/news/?p=7187</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In the May 12, 2025 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Aaron Peskin writes, &#8220;Where Do I Have to Go to Get a Decent Beer? —State of Taprooms in Pa. and NJ in 2025.&#8221; It is fair to say that the craft beer boom of the 2010s is largely over. The year 2024 saw the first [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div data-v-1c1aa57e="">
<p>In the May 12, 2025 edition of <a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer">The Legal Intelligencer</a>, Aaron Peskin writes, &#8220;<a href="https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2025/05/12/where-do-i-have-to-go-to-get-a-decent-beerstate-of-taprooms-in-pa-and-nj-in-2025/">Where Do I Have to Go to Get a Decent Beer? —State of Taprooms in Pa. and NJ in 2025</a>.&#8221;</p>
<p>It is fair to say that the craft beer boom of the 2010s is largely over. The year 2024 saw the first decline in the overall number of craft breweries nationwide since 2005. There are a lot of factors that have led to this decline, including the rise of hard seltzers, RTD (ready to drink) cocktails, and even the rise of recreational cannabis. With all of that said, Pennsylvania has both recently either passed new laws or reinterpreted existing ones to be friendlier to those in the business of brewing beer.</p>
</div>
<p><span id="more-7187"></span></p>
<div id="vert5" class="print:hidden flex items-center justify-center" data-v-ab69641e="" data-v-1c1aa57e="">
<div id="gpt-vert5" data-v-ab69641e="" data-google-query-id="CLLUpPylo40DFbKkWgUdFcwAnw">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_/21665826759/thelegalintelligencer/articledisplay_6__container__">Pennsylvania has two types of licenses for brewing beer, a G-license, which permits the production of malt and brewed beverages (i.e., beer) at the licensed premises, and a GP-license, which pertains to brewpubs.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div data-v-1c1aa57e="">
<p>In 2016, Gov. Tom Wolf signed into law Act 166, which revolutionized the business of G-license holders. Once this law came into effect, G-license holders gained much of the rights that were previously held only by GP-license holders without any major drawbacks. Since then, Pennsylvania G-license holders can:</p>
<ul id="rte-f0d19d10-269f-11f0-a744-67c7a1c1805b">
<li>Operate taprooms on the licenses premises so long as they have 10 seats and offer snack foods (chips and pretzels) for sale along with the beer.  Pennsylvania breweries are also permitted to operate full kitchens should they wish to do so.</li>
<li>Obtain expo permits that allow them to sell beer at festivals by glass, growler, bottle, or package not to exceed 192 fluid ounces in a single transaction. The permit is $30 per day and cannot be used for more than 30 consecutive days and is limited to 100 days per year.</li>
<li>Sell at farmer’s markets by growler, bottle, or package not to exceed 192 fluid ounces in a single transaction. The permit is $250 per year and can be used at multiple farmers markets.</li>
<li>Sell Pennsylvania beer brewed by other manufacturers as well as  Pennsylvania limited wines and limited distillery products. In other words, Pennsylvania breweries are allowed to sell cocktails so long as the use Pennsylvania liquor.</li>
<li>Operate up to two storage facilities per license. But these are not ordinary warehouses. Pennsylvania law permits breweries to operate these facilities as taprooms in exactly the same manner as its principal licenses premises.  In other words, a Pennsylvania brewery can sell beer as well as Pennsylvania limited win and limited spirits in these storage facilities. This development has been a boon to many breweries that have been able to expand their reach and find new sales outlets for their products.</li>
<li>Self-distribute their products. Pennsylvania beer distribution laws are heavily weighted in favor of distributors. In fact, beer distribution contracts can only be terminated by brewers “for cause.” This is a relic of the 1960s and 1970s when the extremely limited number of breweries in the United States meant that the termination of a distribution contract by one brewery could be a death sentence for a distributor.  But regardless of the wisdom these laws, Pennsylvania allows breweries to enter the market outside of their own taproom without the need to enter into a contract with a distributor.  While a distributor may be useful as a brewery grows, this right of self-distribution allows new breweries to explore the market without getting locked into any deal that they cannot walk away from.</li>
</ul>
<div data-v-1c1aa57e="">
<p>The impact of Act 166 effectively rendered the GP (brewpub) license largely obsolete because the rights given to Pennsylvania brewers were largely the same as those previously enjoyed only by brewpubs. GP license holders still retain a few advantages over G license holders. GP licenses are allowed to be open both earlier in the day and later in the day than G license holders. They may also purchase catering permits for off-premises catering events for five hours per day and up to 52 hours per year, but that advantage has been mitigated by the expo permits available to breweries. And there are also significant disadvantages—GP license holders cannot self-distribute and require seating for 30 as opposed to 10 for breweries.</p>
</div>
<div data-v-1c1aa57e="">
<p>It likely makes far more sense for someone looking to start a brewery in Pennsylvania to apply for a G license as opposed to a GP license. Here are a few more factors to consider:</p>
<ul id="rte-f0d19d11-269f-11f0-a744-67c7a1c1805b">
<li>You can also apply for license “couplets.” These couplets can be for manufacturing other forms of alcoholic beverages (wine or spirits) or for holding a retail or eatery license. The latter carry significant advantages in hours that you are allowed to sell your products and what you are allowed to sell, but bear in mind that you’ll have to purchase that license on the open market.</li>
<li>There are a lot of “brewers” out there using the G license as a backdoor to effectively open a bar without paying for the far more expensive R license, which usually sell for around $300,000. This is extremely risky as you are expected as a G license holder to have your own product constitute at least 50% of your alcohol sales. If you are brewing a miniscule amount and then mostly selling other people’s beer, wine, and spirits, you run the risk of being found in violation of Pennsylvania liquor law.</li>
<li>There is a growing trend among brewers to farm out kitchen operations to a contractor. This is permissible under Pennsylvania law as these kitchen operators would be considered “managers” under Pennsylvania law, but there are some problems with this arrangement. Pennsylvania law does not permit a license holder to sub-lease licensed premises, but Pennsylvania permits management agreements for all liquor license holders, including manufacturers. However, there are additional restrictions upon G and GP license holders. For example, while R license holders can sign an agreement with the manager where the manager will be paid a percentage of the establishment’s revenue, G license holders are not allowed to come to such an agreement. Rather, G license holders can only agree to pay a flat fee to the manager. So brewers should be very careful in mapping out what the expected revenue is for their business or they may end overpaying the manager of their kitchen operations.</li>
<li>Additionally, Pennsylvania law requires that the license holder maintain total control over the operations of the licensed premises, so this agreement cannot work like a lease guaranteeing the manager a certain period of time in the premises. Instead, it operates more like an at-will employment agreement where the license holder can terminate the relationship at any time. This actually works in the license holder’s favor, but anyone looking to enter into a kitchen management agreement should make this clear to the potential manager so as to avoid future litigation should the relationship not work as hoped.</li>
</ul>
<p>Ultimately, there are certainly challenges ahead for craft brewers, but Pennsylvania offers quite a few opportunities to start and grow your business.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.khflaw.com/aaron-l-peskin.html"><b>Aaron Peskin</b></a><i> is senior counsel at Kang Haggerty, where he focuses on complex commercial and employment litigation. Additionally, Peskin has a niche practice representing start-up breweries and has helped several award-winning breweries in the Philadelphia area with all facets of law, from incorporation and operating agreements to commercial leases to trademarks and licensing. Contact him at </i><a href="mailto:apeskin@kanghaggerty.com"><i><u>apeskin@kanghaggerty.com</u></i></a>.</p>
<p><strong><em>Reprinted with permission from the May 12, 2025 edition of “The Legal Intelligencer” © 2025 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-257-3382 or <a href="mailto:reprints@alm.com">reprints@alm.com</a>.</em></strong></p>
</div>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">7187</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aaron Peskin Provides Law360 Expert Analysis on How DOGE&#8217;s Severance Plan May Affect Federal Employees</title>
		<link>https://www.khflaw.com/news/aaron-peskin-provides-law360-expert-analysis-on-how-doges-severance-plan-may-affect-federal-employees/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aaron L. Peskin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law360]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.khflaw.com/news/?p=6727</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[On February 26, 2025, Law360 published an Expert Analysis authored by Kang Haggerty senior counsel Aaron Peskin, on How DOGE&#8217;s Severance Plan May Affect Federal Employees. To say that President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration is off to a fast start would be quite the understatement. The administration, working through Elon Musk&#8217;s Department of Government Efficiency, is [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On February 26, 2025, Law360 published an Expert Analysis authored by Kang Haggerty senior counsel <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.khflaw.com%2Faaron-l-peskin.html&amp;data=05%7C02%7Casponic%40kanghaggerty.com%7C19f9eb8bca72441808ae08dd57484afc%7C80c224c65912483cbc851c3b23c57f98%7C0%7C0%7C638762690209454138%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=vk4isJU%2FD31U%2F7ucHQREIOm7jK%2BKcftHzm8RIEv%2Bu7U%3D&amp;reserved=0">Aaron Peskin</a>, on <strong><a href="https://www.khflaw.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Law360-How-DOGEs-Severance-Plan-May-Affect-Federal-Employees.pdf">How DOGE&#8217;s Severance Plan May Affect Federal Employees</a>.</strong></p>
<p><em>To say that President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration is off to a fast start would be quite the understatement. The administration, working through Elon Musk&#8217;s Department of Government Efficiency, is clearly looking to change how the federal government works by offering a mass severance package to roughly 2 million employees, which is virtually the entire federal workforce.</em></p>
<p>If you have any questions or would like to learn more, please contact Aaron at Kang Haggerty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">6727</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
