Author: JGL Law

Profile picture of JGL Law
Website
https://www.jgllaw.com

Posts by JGL Law

In an article published on February 24, 2025, by The Washington Post JGL Principal Drew LaFramboise was quoted about the class action lawsuit against the Psychiatric Institute of Washington, which alleges widespread mistreatment of patients at the hospital. LaFramboise and JGL Principal Veronica Nannis are co-counsel for the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, a patient alleges that the institution prioritizes profits over patient care, systematically committing patients when not medically necessary to maximize insurance payments. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the patient and certification of a class of thousands of patients involuntarily hospitalized at the facility in the decade since it was acquired by corporate hospital giant Universal Health Services.

“Behind this is a massive corporate enterprise that is continuing to expand rapidly and has made no bones about the fact that they are interested in nothing more than expansion and increasing occupancy in these facilities,” said LaFramboise.

Read the full article “D.C. psych hospital committed patients to boost profits, lawsuit says.” (PDF)


Additional press coverage is available:

Psychiatric hospital in DC accused of neglect, abuse – WUSA Channel 9

Lawsuit: Psych Hospital Faked Records to Boost Profits – Newser

In this episode of JGL LAW FOR YOU, JGL family law attorneys Christopher Castellano and David Bulitt discuss the key considerations and potential implications associated with selling your home in connection with a divorce.

[00:00:00] David Bulitt: Welcome to JGL Law for You. JGL Law for You is a podcast by lawyers, but not for lawyers. Only on JGL Law for You do we discuss a wide array of topics to help you navigate the many legal processes, developments in the law, other current events, and how they may affect you, your family, or your business.

[00:00:20] Today we’re talking real estate and divorce. Uh, complicated topics that sometimes co-mingle, and to help us discuss what to do, how to do it, what not to do, is a principal at Joseph Greenwald and Laake, Christopher Castellano, who for over a decade has represented clients in Maryland domestic cases, including custody, divorce, and modification actions.

Chris, welcome aboard, thanks for coming back, and this is a great discussion to have. Particularly this time of year, because, you know, we’re starting to approach the spring when houses go on the market, when some people are looking to buy houses or move to other homes for school [00:01:00] reasons or otherwise. And as you and I know, January and February are busy, busy times for people who are in unhappy relationships. So those two worlds tend to collide, right?

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, absolutely. This time of the year is one of the hottest because you’ve got a lot of those questions swirling of, you know, what should I do for this upcoming year?

David Bulitt: Let’s start and work from the top down a little bit. What are the overall concerns, the factors, the things that you want to keep in mind? Either those that are real, dollars and cents wise, or the more intangible emotional type factors?

Christopher Castellano: Right. We’re talking just about the house. When you’re dealing with a house in the context of dissolving your marriage, there’s quite a few things to take into account. You know, first you have to understand, which is why it’s always good to talk to an experienced lawyer, but you have to understand the legal parameters within which you’re working, right?

And so, a house, just like your car, just like your retirement, is an asset, and the court’s going to treat it as such. And as a result, you know, we have to look at a few key questions:

  • who owns the house
  • who’s on the title
  • whether either party has contributed to the house

If we have a house that’s at least partly or entirely premarital, we also need to consider whether either person has contributed to the mortgage, maintenance, or upkeep. There’s a lot of different factors that go into the question of ownership of the house and how the court may treat the ownership of the house. That’s one of the first core questions that we look at.

David Bulitt: Let’s talk about that. Let’s come back to the emotional part, which is often the more difficult thing to deal with. Let’s talk about the legal aspect, at least in terms of how Maryland looks at a marital home.

Christopher Castellano: Sure. If you’ve got a home that you purchased during your marriage with your spouse, it’s going to be titled tenants by the entirety, and essentially it’s owned by both of you equally. The court’s going to treat it as such. We’re going to divide it 50/50, and we’re going to sell the house.

[00:03:00] David Bulitt: When you say 50/50 the house, what does that mean? That means that if the house gets sold that the two people would split the proceeds equally?

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, that’s right. And we’re going to look at proceeds as essentially the net proceeds of the house. So, we’re going to deal with the mortgage, we’re going to pay that off, we’re going to deal with closing costs, we’re going to deal with attorney’s fees related to the sale of the house, and any taxes that may be necessary. And the net proceeds will get divided 50/50. Now, that could be by way of an agreement, or that could be by way of a court order.

David Bulitt: Okay, and let’s go back to the titling piece, because folks sometimes do things differently. I mean, most of us think we buy a house together, we’re both getting on the deed, we’re both getting on the mortgage, but that isn’t necessarily the case in certain circumstances, right?

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, some people may find it beneficial to have it titled one way or the other. For instance, one spouse, they’re on the title just completely by themselves. And for all intents and purposes, that may be a sensible decision at the time, right? But of course, that becomes a complicated discussion if now we’re on the other end of the equation and we’re dissolving the marriage.

David Bulitt: Okay. And one of the reasons that folks may, who are married, may buy a piece of property or getting ready to get married, whatever it might be, and have it titled jointly or titled separately, or the mortgage be where there’s only one party on there, may have something to do with, what, with maybe the credit score of one of the two potential buyers or something like that?

Christopher Castellano: Well, sure. I mean, it may be credit score, in this area we’ve got a lot of military, could be various different benefits for different types of loans. There’s a lot of factors that go into how the house is titled and how the deed of trust or your mortgage are structured. But ultimately what the court’s going to look at is that marital interest. And that’s what I want to focus on next, which is, okay, we’ve identified the title, we’ve identified who is essentially living in the home, but how do we look at the value of the house, and what portion of that is marital?

David Bulitt: Let me just ask you a clarifying question for a second. Doesn’t that mean that it’s marital property as a matter of law?

Christopher Castellano: If it is titled jointly, it is considered under the statute marital property, yes.

David Bulitt: So how do you deal with situations where one person contributed more?

Christopher Castellano: The premarital or non-marital contribution to the purchase of a house is always somewhat of a sticky question. I’ve interacted with judges who have come out in different ways. But generally speaking, that type of contribution is often viewed as a gift to the marriage unless there is an agreement stating otherwise.

[00:06:00]

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, so what we’re doing next is figuring out how to value that interest, right? We touched on it a little bit before. You’re going to look at the market value of the house, and you’re going to subtract out the mortgage, any lines of credit, anything that’s attached to the house, right? And that gives you your base level equity in the property.

But then you have to take it a step further. You’ve got to ask: are there any agreements in place? Is there a prenup? Is there some understanding between the parties — even informal — that would affect how that equity is divided?

David Bulitt: So, people can come to an agreement on value themselves, or they can get an appraisal.

Christopher Castellano: That’s right. Ideally, people come to an agreement. You can use Zillow, Redfin, Realtor — all these tools — to get a rough estimate. But if there’s disagreement, then you bring in a professional appraiser. And sometimes you even have dueling appraisals, right? One side hires one, the other side hires another, and then you’re arguing over which one is more credible.

David Bulitt: Which of course adds cost.

Christopher Castellano: Exactly. And that’s why, again, going back to practicality, if you can agree on a number that’s within reason, you’re saving yourself time, money, and stress.

[00:08:00]

David Bulitt: So now we’re in a situation where there’s no agreement. Trial is coming. What’s the court going to do?

Christopher Castellano: The court is going to order the house sold. That’s the baseline. And like we talked about earlier, you’re not controlling that process anymore. A trustee is going to be appointed. That trustee is going to make decisions about the house — when it’s listed, what repairs are done, how it’s marketed.

And importantly, you’re going to be paying for that. You’re paying trustee fees, you’re paying real estate commissions, and all of that is coming out of the equity.

David Bulitt: So instead of splitting, say, $200,000, you might be splitting $150,000.

Christopher Castellano: Exactly. And that’s why, from a strategic standpoint, we use that as leverage. It’s not a threat — it’s just reality. If you don’t come to an agreement, this is what’s going to happen.

David Bulitt: And most people don’t want to give up that money.

Christopher Castellano: Correct.

[00:10:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s shift to when there are kids involved.

Christopher Castellano: This is where things get a lot more complicated, because now you’re not just dealing with money — you’re dealing with stability for the children.

Maryland allows for what’s called use and possession. That means the court can allow one parent, usually the primary custodian, to remain in the home for up to three years.

David Bulitt: And during that time, the house isn’t sold.

Christopher Castellano: Correct. The house stays in place. The kids stay there, and one parent stays with them. It’s meant to provide continuity — keep the kids in the same school, the same neighborhood, the same environment.

David Bulitt: And after that period?

Christopher Castellano: Then the house is typically sold unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

[00:12:00]

David Bulitt: What about situations where parents are more cooperative?

Christopher Castellano: If people are cooperative, there’s a lot more flexibility. They can come up with arrangements that extend beyond what the court would typically order. For instance, they may agree to keep the house longer than three years, or come up with creative arrangements like nesting — where the kids stay in the home and the parents rotate in and out.

David Bulitt: And that requires a high level of cooperation.

Christopher Castellano: Very high. That’s not something you see in contentious cases, but it can work in the right situation.

[00:14:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s talk about contributions again. If one spouse has been paying everything — mortgage, utilities, maintenance — for a period of time, how does that factor in?

Christopher Castellano: That’s often a point of negotiation. One side may say, “I’ve been carrying the house for two or three years, I should get a greater share of the equity.” And the other side may push back and say, “Well, you lived there, you benefited from it.”

And so, you get into a negotiation about what’s fair. Maybe it’s not 50/50 anymore. Maybe it’s 55/45, maybe it’s something else. It depends on the facts of the case.

David Bulitt: And if you can’t agree?

Christopher Castellano: Then you make the argument to the court, and the court decides. But there’s no guarantee how the court is going to rule on that.

[00:16:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s talk about agreements — prenups, postnups.

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, absolutely. You can absolutely have an agreement that says, “If we divorce, this is what happens with the house.” And that can cover everything from who gets the house to how proceeds are divided.

David Bulitt: And those are enforceable?

Christopher Castellano: Generally, yes, as long as they’re properly executed. That means:

  • both parties had the opportunity to review
  • there wasn’t coercion
  • it’s not unconscionable

David Bulitt: And it removes a lot of the uncertainty.

Christopher Castellano: Exactly. It takes what could be a very contentious issue and turns it into something straightforward.

[00:18:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s talk about timing. What’s the benefit of selling the house before the divorce is finalized?

Christopher Castellano: The biggest benefit is liquidity. The house is often the largest asset, and when you sell it, you create a pool of funds that can be used to resolve the rest of the case.

Instead of arguing about, “Who gets what?” in a vacuum, you have actual dollars that can be allocated.

David Bulitt: It gives you flexibility.

Christopher Castellano: Exactly. It allows for what we call “horse trading.” You can offset assets — maybe one person takes more of a retirement account, the other takes more cash. Without liquidity, that becomes much harder.

[00:20:00]

David Bulitt: And what if the house is underwater?

Christopher Castellano: That’s a different situation entirely. If you owe more than the house is worth, then you’re dealing with potential short sales, potential losses, and that has to be factored into the overall division of assets.

But again, that’s why it’s so important to understand the numbers early.

[00:22:00]

David Bulitt: Let’s wrap with this. What should someone do before they list their home?

Christopher Castellano: First, talk to an experienced family law attorney. That’s the starting point.

From there:

  • take inventory of all assets
  • understand your financial picture
  • determine the value of the home
  • decide on a strategy — sell, buyout, or hold

And timing is key. The market matters. If you time it correctly, you can maximize value. If you don’t, you could lose a significant amount of equity.

[00:24:00]

David Bulitt: Chris, this has been a really helpful discussion. It’s a complicated topic, and I think you’ve made it much more accessible.

If people want to get in touch with you, what’s the best way?

Christopher Castellano: Yeah, they can call me directly at 240-399-7900, or they can visit JGLLaw.com. My contact information is there, and I’d be happy to speak with anyone about their situation.

David Bulitt: Thanks so much for joining us. Folks, thanks for listening. If you found this helpful, please subscribe. I’m David Bulitt, and this is JGL Law for You.

In an article published in The Legal Intelligencer, Paul Riekhof discusses important estate planning considerations when going through a divorce.

Riekhof explains that people in the process of getting a divorce or who have just become divorced need to address five main elements related to their estate plans: their last will and testaments or revocable trusts, financial powers of attorney, health care powers of attorney and medical directives, life insurance and retirement plan beneficiary designations, and jointly owned assets.

Riekhof explains that divorce, estate and trust laws differ substantially between states. More than 40 states have laws that automatically revoke provisions of pre-divorce estate planning documents upon divorce. However, only 26 states have laws regarding whether a divorce produces an automatic effect on predivorce beneficiary designations. To ensure that your assets pass according to your wishes, it’s important to quickly change all estate planning documents and beneficiary designations upon divorce, Riekhof writes.

Planning for children and other beneficiaries is also an important part of divorce estate planning, Riekhof says, and it’s especially critical if minor children are involved. That includes determining who will manage the assets, who will be involved, and when the assets will be turned over to the children.

Divorces are stressful, and many people don’t consider estate planning when going through a divorce proceeding. If done correctly, Riekhof concludes, estate planning doesn’t have to add to that stress. He further states that taking steps to change the five important elements of an estate plan is a crucial part of fully severing the legal relationship with and avoiding unintentional benefits to a former spouse.

Read the full article “The Keys to Estate Planning During and After Divorce” on the Law.com website (subscription required).

CBS Mornings interviewed Michal Shinnar on February 18, 2025, about the firing of federal employees. The news segment highlighted a former federal employee hired by the FAA in December who was fired on February 14.

The federal worker said she received an email blaming the termination on her performance; however, she never received any negative feedback about the work she was doing. She held the position for less than one year and, therefore, had not yet received civil service protection at the time of her termination.

Shinnar told CBS Mornings that the termination appears to be “a purely false stated reason.” She notes Trump’s team has been citing performance in firing because by law probationary federal workers can only be removed for performance or misconduct. “This situation is ripe for class action lawsuits,” said Shinnar.

Watch the interview to learn more.

Our highways, city and rural streets have never been more dangerous. Since the pandemic, driving behavior has changed across the United States as we are plagued with distracted driving, speeding, and a decrease in traffic enforcement.

On February 12, 2025, David Rouzer, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, released opening remarks titled “America Builds: A Review of Programs to Address Roadway Safety” from a hearing about the Subcommittee’s efforts to improve highway safety through policy and program reviews within the Department of Transportation. Summarized below are the most important pieces of information from the hearing.

Driver behavior has changed considerably since the pandemic

The significant increase in traffic fatalities since the onset of the pandemic appears largely related to increased risks being taken by drivers. In an October 2021 report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that “after the declaration of the public health emergency in March 2020, driving patterns and behaviors in the United States changed significantly. Of the drivers who remained on the roads, some engaged in riskier behavior, including speeding, failure to wear seat belts, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that across the U.S.:

  • Nearly 41,000 people died in motor vehicle related crashes in 2023, down 3.6 percent from 2022, but overall fatalities were still up compared to the last decade.
  • After pandemic-era closures began in March of 2020, driving trips dropped by 60 percent and speeding risks increased by 64 percent.
  • The risks increased as traffic enforcement declined after police officers held back from “nonessential” contact.
  • In 2021, traffic fatalities jumped over 10 percent, the highest number since 2005 and the largest increase since 1975.
  • In 2022, NHTSA found that 40 percent of all traffic fatalities occurred in rural areas on non-interstate roads, despite only 20 percent of the population living in rural areas.

In addition, almost 50 percent of Americans say that people in their area drive somewhat less safely or a lot less safely than before the pandemic. Seventy-eight percent of Americans also think that cellphone use is a major problem in their area, while 63 percent think speeding and aggressive driving are substantial issues. (Source: Pew Research Center).

What’s in the Committee’s Plan?

  • Provide states and local governments flexibility to implement programs in our rural communities.
  • Encourage states to develop Highway Safety Improvement Programs
  • Adapt pavement and guardrail standards to new vehicle technology such as electric vehicles which weigh more than traditional vehicles.
  • Address work zone safety which puts roadside workers at greater risk of injury or death. According to the Associated General Contractors of America, 64 percent of contractors reported a motor vehicle had crashed into their work zone since 2020.

Three Key Takeaways

  • Post-pandemic driving levels are now back up to the pre-pandemic levels and with federal employees returning to work, the numbers will be higher.
  • The new normal of post-pandemic driving habits put people at risk of severe injuries and death.
  • Put down your cell phones and pay attention to the road.

What to Do After an Accident

If you or a loved one is in an auto accident, contact an experienced Personal Injury attorney. At Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, we serve people in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia.

The Daily Record and the Maryland State Bar Association named Lindsay Parvis and Celeste Cunningham to the 2025 Leaders in Law.

The award honors Maryland’s legal leaders who have shown tremendous dedication to the legal profession and selfless, tireless commitment to the community. This award pays tribute to the ways in which legal professionals are serving businesses, clients and individuals across Maryland and making communities stronger. Lindsay and Celeste will be honored at an awards celebration on April 7, 2025.

A principal with JGL, Lindsay concentrates her practice in family law and related issues. For more than 20 years she has helped individuals and families navigate some of life’s biggest challenges: divorce, custody, domestic violence, and financial matters like alimony, child support and property division.

Celeste, who manages the firm’s paralegals and the personal injury practice, has been a valued member of the staff for more than two decades.

DC’s only private psychiatric hospital has a long well-documented track record of neglect and abuse

Washington, DC–A new class action lawsuit alleges that the Psychiatric Institute of Washington (PIW), under the control and ownership of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS), has engaged in a years-long pattern of patient mistreatment, in violation of federal and state law. This lawsuit was brought by a local woman, on behalf of a class of similarly-situated former patients of PIW, who experienced mistreatment after being involuntarily hospitalized at the facility. The lawsuit comes after similar findings and investigations by the Council of the District of Columbia, patient advocates DC Disability Rights, and other victims.

The lawsuit describes a systemic pattern of neglect and abuse at PIW. It alleges that PIW engages in widespread falsification of patients’ medical records and unlawful involuntary hospitalizations, fails to provide indicated and necessary treatment, is chronically and intentionally understaffed, and subjects patients to unsafe and unsanitary conditions. The class action focuses on UHS’s corporate strategy of prioritizing profits over the safety and wellbeing of patients.

“In this case, we’ve alleged that the Psychiatric Institute of Washington and their corporate leadership at Universal Health Services will stop at nothing to increase the number of patients and maximize profits and shareholder value, regardless of the impact on their patient population,” said Drew LaFramboise, principal at Joseph Greenwald & Laake, and attorney for the plaintiff.

UHS has been subject to numerous investigations and lawsuits, including an October 28, 2024 hearing by the D.C. City Council Committee on Health focused on PIW and the District’s oversight of the facility. A 2022 investigation by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee that found that residential behavioral health providers, including UHS, “optimize per diems by filling large facilities to capacity and maximize profit by concurrently reducing the number and quality of staff in facilities.” In 2020, the United States settled a lawsuit against UHS for $122 million for their alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act. The United States’ suit alleged UHS’s failure to provide adequate staffing, training, and supervision of staff, regular use of improper restraint and seclusion, failure to discharge patients when hospitalization was no longer necessary, failure to develop and/or update treatment plans, and inadequate psychotherapy and discharge planning, as pertaining to beneficiaries of federal health insurance programs.

“We are proud to represent our client and others who may come forward in their search for accountability from the Psychiatric Institute of Washington for claims of systematic, involuntary hospitalization and other harm,” said Veronica Nannis, principal at Joseph Greenwald & Laake and attorney for the plaintiff.

Psychiatric Institute of Washington, the only private psychiatric hospital in Washington, D.C. and is located at 4228 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. Universal Health Services, Inc., the largest owner and operator of for-profit hospitals in the country, and is located in King of Prussia, PA.

To learn more about this case, click here.

In an article published on February 4, 2025, in HR.com’s HR Legal & Compliance Excellence magazine, Brian Markovitz and Deborah Jaffe explain what Trump’s labor and employment picks could mean for employees.

The attorneys discuss the nomination of Lori Chavez-DeRemer to lead the U.S. Department of Labor, a more moderate choice than expected. The Trump administration has named Marvin Kaplan as the chairman of the National Labor Relations Board and terminated its general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo. As for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the president has announced he is appointing Andrea Lucas as its acting chair and is similarly expected to terminate the current general counsel.

While not all of the policy orders Trump has made are expected to last, it’s evident the new administration has a clear agenda moving forward, the attorneys wrote.

“Despite potential legal challenges ahead, with a 53-47 Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, President Trump’s nominees are expected to encounter little resistance during the confirmation process,” Markovitz and Jaffe explained, “situating the Trump administration to push forward with its expectedly pro-business agenda.”

Continue reading “EEOC, NLRB, And DOL: Who’s In Charge?” on the HR.com website.

JGL President, Paul Riekhof, announced that Christopher Castellano and Jonathan Stepanuk have been named Principals of the firm.

Christopher received his JD from the University of Baltimore School of Law and primarily focuses his practice on uncontested and contested family law matters, including pre/post nuptial agreements, separation agreements, divorce, marital property division, business valuations, child custody/visitation, spousal and child support, and modifications.

Jonathan received his JD from the University of Baltimore School of Law and focuses his practice on family law including complex financial disputes such as alimony, the division of business and investment assets, and custody.

If and when to voluntarily retire or leave a job is a personal and professional choice. BUT if you are considering voluntarily leaving any job due to the promise of getting pay or other benefits, you want to be sure that you know with specificity what those promises are, and that the promises are enforceable.

This is exactly why federal employees considering taking the new deferred resignation program should be fully aware of what is actually being offered, and the risks they take by accepting this option so that they can make an appropriate and informed decision.

What the Program Promises

Under the deferred resignation program offered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), federal employees can choose to resign by February 6, 2025, and if they do, OPM promises that in exchange

“[Y]ou will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025 (or earlier if you choose to accelerate your resignation for any reason).”

This “offer” was sent to all federal employees on January 28, 2025. The full terms are laid out here.

The Risks and Uncertainties of the Program’s Promises

There is no guarantee that if you take this option, you will get any financial benefit and/or changes to your working conditions other than telework, from now until you resign on September 30, 2025. However, the wording from OPM may cause some people to assume otherwise.

OPM says that federal employees will get all pay and benefits “regardless of your daily workload” which seems to imply that OPM is offering a significantly reduced workload if you take the offer, or even that you will get paid while not having to work at all (akin to administrative leave). However, employees should be wary of relying on this proposed benefit. There is no basis for federal agencies to allow people to do little to no work for full pay in exchange for a resignation. There are specific times where a federal agency can place someone on administrative leave without pay, and this is just not one of them. Congress could choose to fund this, but has not done so to date.

Moreover, the language in the form resignation letter that employees are being asked to submit to “accept” the offer leaves a lot of room for the government to fail to, or refuse to, uphold its end of the bargain, or even to argue that your acceptance of this offer does not form the basis for a contract like a severance agreement would. The form acceptance letter states:

“I am certain of my decision to resign and my choice to resign is fully voluntary. I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.”

Thus, when you “accept” this offer you are actually submitting a voluntary resignation as of September 30, 2025. Even if you are placed on paid administrative leave following your voluntary resignation, there is no guarantee that the government will not eliminate your position, terminate you, reschedule your position, or subject you to a Reduction in Force in the interim period. If the government does this, it may argue that it does not need to continue to pay you until your September 30, 2025 “voluntary” resignation date.

If you are asked to sign a separation agreement as part of acceptance of this offer, that could further impact your rights, as it is likely that you would waive future claims against the government resulting from your resignation.

You May Not Be Able To Withdraw Your Resignation

Once you resign, there is no guarantee that the agency that you work for will allow you to withdraw your resignation. Under the

An agency may permit an employee to withdraw his resignation at any time before it has become effective. An agency may decline a request to withdraw a resignation before its effective date only when the agency has a valid reason and explains that reason to the employee. A valid reason includes, but is not limited to, administrative disruption or the hiring or commitment to hire a replacement. Avoidance of adverse action proceedings is not a valid reason.

See 5 C.F.R. § 715.202. In short, Agencies have broad discretion to decide if you have a “valid reason” for withdrawing your resignation, and you should proceed with appropriate caution.

What if I do not want to resign, but I require a telework accommodation for my disability?

The deferred resignation program opens by outlining the “four pillars” around which the new administration intends to reform the federal government, one of which is ending remote work. One of the stated benefits offered in the deferred resignation program is being “exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025.” The applicable in-person work requirements include the President’s “Return To In-Person Work” memorandum, and OPM’s Memorandum re: Guidance on Presidential Memorandum Return to In-Person Work.

If you are considering retiring because you need telework due to a disability, and you are concerned that such telework will be canceled, nothing in these changes to telework policies changes employees’ rights to reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act prohibit discrimination against federal employees because of their disability. Employees with qualifying disabilities are entitled to “reasonable accommodations” that will allow them to perform the essential functions of their job, so long as it does not cause an “undue hardship” to the agency. Retaliation against employees for seeking a reasonable accommodation, or protesting unlawful conduct, is also prohibited.

Neither the President, OPM, nor the federal agency you work for can overrule the legal requirements to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. In fact, moreover, the “Return To In-Person Work” memorandum states that “the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary,” and the OPM Memorandum re: Guidance on Presidential Memorandum Return to In-Person Work explicitly makes exceptions for disability accommodations.

If you had your telework rescinded or denied, or have questions about how the changes in telework policy impact your reasonable accommodation, you should consult with an employment lawyer to determine your options.

During the inaugural address, President Trump claimed there was a federal mandate that would prohibit Americans from buying gasoline-powered cars. The truth is “there never has been a federal rule requiring the purchase of EVs.”

Signed on January 20, 2025: UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY (read the full text here).

While the new order appears to provide consumers with more choices, it will likely face long legal battles and may also require congressional legislation to roll back some of what the president would like eliminated. But even if the President succeeds in this mission, electric vehicles will continue to be manufactured and sold in the United States.

The face of automobile manufacturing has changed. Ford Model T may have been the first engine made, but it will not be the last, and automobile and truck manufacturing is now a global business. Americans stand tall for technological advances; however, the United States is no longer the largest auto producing country in the world. China’s clear focus on the manufacture of electric vehicles has taken it to the point of global domination. China built 50 million vehicles in 2024 and nearly one-third of those were EVs or plug-in hybrids.

Yes, many American automobile manufacturers and some foreign manufacturers as well, did announce late last year that new manufacturing and sales would shift slightly from the heavily promoted electric and electric hybrid strategies. Volkswagen, Ford, and General Motors have a better chance of adapting as they currently produce both electric and gasoline-powered engines. However, in the days before Trump took office, Rivian finalized a $6.6 billion manufacturing facility to fund a new facility in Atlanta Georgia. Undoubtedly, there will be a drop in EV sales in the next 3-4 years, but legacy manufacturers will not walk away from EVs. Even if the short-term forecast will be some losses, long-term projections predict a swing to profits similar to Tesla when it began to ramp up production. Electric vehicles have fewer moving parts and can be more profitable to build than the complex engines and transmissions of a gasoline-powered car. Market reports showed Tesla’s profit margins on cars at nearly 16% during the first quarters of 2024, nearly double that of General Motors.

For everyday drivers like us what does all of this mean?

Probably the biggest hit will be the elimination of the $7,500 tax credit available to eligible buyers of electric vehicles. This tax benefit is a big incentive in making a new or used EV more affordable and desirable in the marketplace. Strangely enough, Elon Musk has lobbied for the removal of the tax credit. Due to Tesla’s company size and market dominance, this company may receive a benefit from a decrease in competition as other manufacturers decide to move away from electric vehicles. Some industry analysts believe the demand for electric vehicles will fall between 15% and 20% over the next 3 to 4 years if the tax credit is revoked.

The historic 2022 Transportation bill also provided federal support for vehicle-charging stations and low-interest loans for traditional automakers building new plants to build EVs and the batteries they need. This freeze on electric vehicle infrastructure will undoubtedly delay in implementation of the nationwide electric vehicle infrastructure planned by our former President, but automakers are playing the long-term game. The American appetite for electric vehicles will continue to grow and auto manufacturers are betting the demand for electric vehicles will be stronger than the demand for gasoline-powered cars.

Within the design houses of Michigan, dozens of models of EVs are being formed and are in some stage of production, a process that can be much longer than a single presidential term.

For those of you who own EVs or EV hybrids the resale market may look bleak for the next few years, but the markets will change. And for those of you who are interested in purchasing an EV or EV hybrid, the next few years could be an excellent time to visit your local dealership. The prices may be falling.

JGL attorneys Drew LaFramboise and Veronica Nannis filed a class action complaint against the Psychiatric Institute of Washington (PIW), Health Services, Inc. (UHS), and their subsidiaries.

The class action alleges that, for years, PIW and UHS have systematically violated the rights of their patients, subjected patients to unsafe and unsanitary conditions, withheld necessary treatment and therapy, and involuntary hospitalized patients under false pretenses and in violation of state and federal law. The Plaintiff and class are represented by JGL Principals Veronica Nannis and Drew LaFramboise, JGL Of Counsel Lacey McMullan, and attorneys from Keilty Bonadio.

Click to read the Complaint and Jury Demand (PDF)