This week, a judge in Los Angeles, California vacated a $7.1 million verdict in favor of former Los Angeles Times sports columnist T.J. Simers, who claimed that the paper discriminated against him because of his age and disability. Simers alleged that the discrimination began after he suffered a stroke and other health problems in 2013, when he was 62 years old. Among other things, the newspaper cut his column from three times a week to two, and suspended him for alleged ethics violations. The newspaper ultimately took his column away altogether and reassigned him to sports reporting, which Simers considered a demotion. After the demotion, Simers resigned.
Blogs by Joseph M. Creed
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not require that warehouse workers who package goods for Amazon be paid for the time they spend going through mandatory security screenings at the end of their shifts. These warehouse workers are required to go through a screening process—which is intended to prevent theft and can sometimes take as long as 25 minutes—before they are permitted to leave for the day. The Court ruled that the workers are not legally entitled to be paid for that time. Predictably, there has been strong reaction to the ruling, with some calling it a slap in the face to America’s blue-collar workers and others calling on Congress to change the law.
Despite the strong reaction, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Amazon warehouse workers case might have little impact in Maryland and other states with similar labor laws. Although the decision is the final word on the issue under federal law, it does not dictate state law. In Maryland, state law would likely require an employer to pay employees for time spent in mandatory security screenings and other mandatory, onsite tasks. This post will give an overview of the Supreme Court’s decision and look at how Maryland state law differs.
Understanding the new “ban the box” laws in Montgomery County and Prince George’s County
Most people would assume that the question, “do you have a criminal record?,” would come up early in a job application process. And if the answer is, “yes,” it would likely be a very short process. But within the last month, Montgomery County and Prince George’s County have enacted laws restricting employers’ use of criminal histories in hiring. This post explores these new labor laws and how they will impact employers and employees in these counties.
Can an employer be liable for racist and sexist comments by a client or business partner—someone who does not even work for the employer—toward one of its employees?
Under a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is “yes.” In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., a decision issued on April 29, 2014, the Fourth Circuit recognized that an employer can be liable for harassment perpetrated by a third-party against one of its employees.
The President’s Executive Order on Non-Retaliation for Disclosure of Compensation Information: How it will affect federal contractors and their employees
On April 8, 2014, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order prohibiting federal government contractors from retaliating against employees for disclosing their own or other employees’ salary information. This post will explore the implications of this new Executive Order for federal contractors and their employees.
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS SPOTLIGHT: High Court to Consider Whether an Employment Contract can Establish a Right to Lifetime Employment.
Can an employment contract establish a right to employment for life? The Maryland Court of Appeals will take up this question in the case of Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam.
Under Maryland law, the majority of employees are “at will” employees, meaning they can be terminated at any time and for any reason—other than discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, religion, another legally-protected class, or for a reason that violates Maryland public policy (a very narrow exception)—or no reason at all.
This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.