Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C.

Law Firm in Philadelphia, PA
Premier Philadelphia Employment Law Firm
215-569-1999

Client Rating N/A help_info
Rating Not Shown
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

About This Firm

Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C. has been recognized by the Martindale-Hubbell Bar Register as a preeminent law firm in the field of employment law and civil rights litigation. The Firm is exclusively concentrated in the representation of both employees and employers in all aspects of employment related litigation, including claims under federal and state discrimination laws and federal civil rights laws. The Firm has significant experience in representing both private sector and public sector employers, including state universities and municipalities in employment and civil rights matters. The Firm was lead counsel in the nationwide class action against Abercrombie & Fitch. Reported Cases: Pierce, III v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, in the U.S. District Court, ED. Pennsylvania, 02-8063 (2003); Sarah Borse v. Piece Goods, Inc., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 91-1197; Martin v. Hale Products, Inc., 699 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super., Aug. 13, 1997) (NO. 03769 PHL 1996); Herman v. City of Allentown, 985 F.Supp. 569, 7 A.D. Cases 1326 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 21, 1997) (No.Civ. A.96-6942); Kania v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 14 F.Supp. 2d 730, (81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1042), 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45, 481 (E.D. Pa., Jul 28, 1998); (NO.CIV. A. 97-7136); Davis v. Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein & Coren, P.C., 20F.Supp. 2d 885, 8 A.D. Cases 1322 (E.D. Pa., Oct 13, 1998); NO. CIV. A. 97-cv-7475); Davis v. Rutgers Casualty Ins. Co., 964 F. Supp. 560 (Dist. NJ. 1997); Langford and March v. City of Atlantic City, 235 F.3d 845 (3d Cir. 2000); Garvey v., Jefferson Smurfit Corp., 2000 WL 15860077 (Ed.PA); Smyth v. Pillsbury Co., 914 F.Supp. 97 (E.D. Pa. 1996); Wilson v. North American Reinsurance Company, in the United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 86-4968 (1989); Cavicchia v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, et al, in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 03-0116 (2003) Todd v. New England Motor Freight, et al, in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 03-1684 (2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24307); Goodman v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 04-3471 (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1455); Bootel v. Verizon Directories Corp. in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 03-1997 (2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12240, June 24, 2004, Decided); Cambria v. Ass'n of Flight Attendants, in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 03-5605 (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6092, 177 L.R.R.M. 2061, April 5, 2005, Decided, Summary judgment granted by Judgment entered by Cambria v. Ass'n of Flight Attendants, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13101 (E.D. Pa., June 30, 2005); Conine v. SEPTA, in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 03-3858 (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10453; 95 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1185, March 17, 2005, Decided, March 17, 2005, Filed; Loughin v. Occidental Chem. Corp., in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 04-5564 (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11936, June 16, 2005, Decided); Strang v. Ridley Sch. Dist., in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 03-4625 (2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20993, October 12, 2004, Decided, October 14, 2004, Filed); Reinard v. Ashcroft, in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 02-1886 (2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23693. December 29, 2003, Decided); Willis v. Vie Fin. Group, Inc., in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 04-435 (2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15753; 86 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41, 895; 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1111, August 6, 2004, Decided; Campbell v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 03-3159 (2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11507; 96 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 55, June 9, 2005, Decided, FOR PUBLICATION; Franks v. County of Lehigh, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 04-2971 (2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16000, July 14, 2005, Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a), August 2, 2005, Filed, RULES OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT); Walden v. St. Gobain Corp., in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 03-4768 (323 F.Supp. 2d 637; 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12335, June 30, 2004, Decided); Pamela Diviny v. Village of Cottage Green, Inc., et al, in the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, 03-5096 (2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22191, November 1, 2004, Decided).

Areas of Law

  • Employment Law
  • Employee)
  • Employment Discrimination
  • Employer Liability
  • Sexual Harassment
  • Wrongful Termination
  • Race Discrimination
  • Sex Discrimination
  • Religious Discrimination
  • Pregnancy Discrimination
  • Whistle Blowing
  • Family and Medical Leave
  • Restrictive Covenant
  • Wage and Hour Law
  • Overtime Claims
  • Severance Packages
  • Contract Law
  • Litigation.
  • Disability Discrimination
  • Discrimination
  • Age Discrimination
  • Age Discrimination in Employment
  • Employment Disability Discrimination
  • Caregiver Discrimination
  • National Origin Discrimination
  • Harassment
  • Labor and Employment
  • Employment Contracts
  • Employment at Will
  • Employment Terminiation
  • Employment Rights
  • Employment Mediation
  • Employment Law
  • Employment Litigation
  • Family and Medical Leave Act
  • Reductions in Force
  • Retaliatory Discharge
  • Restrictive Covenants
  • Whistleblower Litigation
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Qui Tam Litigation
  • Executive Severance Contracts
  • Workplace Violence
  • ERISA
  • ERISA Litigation
  • Title VII Discrimination
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Law
  • Trade Secret Misappropriation
  • Contracts
  • Noncompetition and Non-Solicitation Agreements
  • Fraud .
 
Rating Not Shown
This firm has chosen not to display the rating(s) provided by its clients.

People at This Firm

Lawyer Name:
Area of Law:
Principal Shareholder
Associate
Associate
Associate
Administrative Paralegal
Intake Supervisor

Legal Community Activity

Firm Details

Firm Size

5

Contact Information

Firm Address

Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 515,
Philadelphia, PA 19103
U.S.A.

Phone

215-569-1999

Fax

215-569-3870

Email

Send email to Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C.

Office Information
 1835 Market Street, Suite 515,
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Loading...

Video
Play Law Firm Video
Office Hours
Monday
By appointment
Tuesday
By appointment
Wednesday
By appointment
Thursday
By appointment
Friday
By appointment


About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

Anonymity

Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.