In an article published in HR Executive on January 30, 2025, Brian Markovitz and Deborah Jaffe discuss whether President Trump’s labor policies will bring major changes for human resources professionals and alter the landscape of worker protections and business regulations.

Markovitz and Jaffe examine Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, and provide insight into what the selection says about the new administration’s labor policies. They also discuss the appointment of Marvin E. Kaplan as chairman of the NLRB and the expected termination of current NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo and what this may mean for union-friendly policies enacted during the Biden Administration.

Continue reading “Will Trump’s labor policies radically shift the landscape for HR?” in HR Executive.

When faced with the prospect of divorce, many couples in Maryland understand that selling their home will be part of the process. Selling a home in connection with a divorce involves several legal and emotional factors you will need to navigate. This is why it is important to understand key considerations and potential implications associated with selling your home in connection with a divorce.

Understanding Maryland’s Property Division Laws

In Maryland, property division during a divorce is governed by the concept of “equitable distribution.” This means that the court aims to divide marital property fairly, though not necessarily equally. When it comes to the family home, the court will consider various factors, including, but not limited to:

  • Ownership of the Property: to whom the house is titled. Most people own a house together as “tenants by the entireties,” but different arrangements are possible, so it is important to understand the ownership of your home.
  • Contribution Toward the Acquisition of the Property: such as financial contributions and non-financial contributions toward acquiring the home. This is relevant if the home was acquired by one spouse prior to marriage and can impact whether a premarital home has a marital value component.

Understanding the Value of Your Home

Most people finance their home with a mortgage and some even have a home equity line of credit. The fair market value of your home, less debt, is considered a basic net value of your home. A number then can be used when considering a marital property division for the purposes of a divorce.

Agreements Between the Parties

While not particularly common, some people do have prenuptial or postnuptial agreements in place. These types of agreements often have clauses regarding how a home is divided in the event of a divorce. Understanding your pre or postnuptial agreement is essential when determining how your home will be divided in the event of a divorce.

Custody

The custody and parenting time arrangement can be a significant aspect of how the home is resolved pending a divorce. If there is no agreement between the parties as to custody, then you are likely to have complex issues to deal with, including, but not limited to, determining who primarily resides in the home and for how long, the primary residence of the children, and the cost of carrying the home. The question of custody is likely to be one of the most central considerations when resolving the question of a home in a divorce.

Can You and Your Spouse Agree to Sell Your Home Prior to Divorce?

Of course. In fact, as one of the largest assets in a marriage, amicably resolving how to deal with the marital home is one of the best ways toward resolving your case as a whole. There are additional advantages as well:

  • Liquidity: Converting the marital home into cash can provide much-needed liquidity for both parties, allowing for more options when determining a clean division of the remaining assets.
  • Emotional Separation: Selling the marital home can facilitate emotional detachment from the marriage, as it often serves as a powerful reminder of the relationship.
  • Avoiding Joint Ownership: Making joint decisions about a home’s maintenance and eventual sale can be challenging in the midst of a divorce, and selling resolves these questions.

What Should You Consider Before Listing Your Home?

  • Consult with a Legal Professional: Discuss your plans with an experienced family law attorney to understand your rights and the potential outcomes, particularly if you believe custody will be an issue.
  • Evaluate the Market: Work with a real estate agent to understand the current market conditions and the potential value of your home.
  • Alternative Options: Explore other options, such as buying out your spouse’s share of the home (if possible) or keeping it and agreeing on a fair compensation to your spouse.
  • Prepare for Emotional Challenges: Selling your home in connection with a divorce can be emotionally taxing as it represents the end of a significant chapter in your life. Seek support from family, friends, or professionals.
  • Document Everything: Keep records of all financial transactions and decisions related to the sale to avoid disputes later.

Selling your home in anticipation of a divorce can be a complex process, legally and emotionally. By understanding Maryland’s property division laws, exploring all options, and seeking professional guidance, you can make informed decisions that will help you move forward with confidence. Remember, the goal is to reach a fair and equitable resolution that allows both parties to start their new chapters on solid ground.

If you’re considering this step, don’t hesitate to reach out to an experienced Maryland family lawyer for personalized advice tailored to your unique situation.

In an article published in The Bump on January 28, 2025, Erika Jacobsen White was quoted regarding pregnant workers and coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

The FMLA provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for specific family or medical reasons – but only if you qualify. White explains, “In order to qualify, the worker must be employed at a location where the employer has at least 50 employees employed within a 75-mile radius. For remote workers, this means that they’re covered if they report to and/or receive assignments from an office with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius.”

For employees who are not looking to take leave but need accommodations to perform their job, White highlights the PWFA, “which requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide ‘reasonable accommodations’ to employees or job applicants with pregnancy-related conditions.” White states “reasonable accommodations” can include time off, job restructuring, temporary reassignment, time off for medical appointments, adjustments to work stations (such as providing seating options), additional breaks or telework.

Read the full article “When to Stop Working During Pregnancy” on The Bump’s website.

JGL is a Premier Sponsor of the Federal Bar Association’s 2025 Qui Tam Conference “Hard-Won Wisdom: FCA Pitfalls and Best Practices,” which will take place in Washington, D.C. on February 20 and 21.

Sessions will dive into the practical side of False Claims Act investigations and litigation, with deeply experienced litigators representing a variety of viewpoints —defense, relator, government, and more—sharing their guidance in strategic areas of FCA practice. The first day of the conference will highlight some of the legal areas the U.S. Department of Justice has identified as priorities for enforcement. The second day will focus on the nitty-gritty questions facing any FCA practitioner. 

JGL attorneys Caralea Grant, Virginia (Gia) Grimm, Jay Holland, Drew LaFramboise, Brian Markovitz, Veronica Nannis and Erika Jacobsen White will attend.

Learn more about the conference.

There is a lot of confusion about what the recent Executive Order revoking Executive Order 11246 means. Some coverage even makes it seem that revoking Executive Order 11246 makes it legal for federal contractors to discriminate against their employees. This is not true.

Executive Order 11246 covers discrimination in federal government employment and most famously has heightened requirements beyond general employment discrimination laws for government contractors regarding employment discrimination, reporting requirements, and the potential penalty of being ineligible for gaining/renewing contracts if the contractor engages in discrimination. The implemented regulations are in 41 CFR 60.

The basic policy idea behind Executive Order 11246 is that when the federal government decides to award contracts, it wants extra assurance that the contractors are not engaging in something the federal government condemns: employment discrimination.

You might disagree with this goal; the ways Executive Order 11246 tries to accomplish this; and/or if it is successful at achieving its ends. That is a separate discussion from the ways revoking the Order changes the law.

Most importantly: Employment discrimination is still against the law whether or not Executive Order 11246 is in place or not. Rescinding Executive Order 11246 in no way makes it legal for covered employers including federal contractors and/or the federal government, to engage in employment discrimination. (some exceptions below).

Now to those exceptions (you are probably noticing that lawyers are always full of exceptions): There are likely some federal contractor employees who lose protection due to the revocation of Executive Order 11246. Under 41 CFR 60-1.5 the Executive Order 11246 applies to all contracts of more than 10k (with some exceptions). Most of our federal employment discrimination laws apply to employers with 15 or more employees. One exception is the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race discrimination and has no employer size threshold. Some states/localities cover employers with fewer employees. So yes, if you work for an employer with under 15 employees, that has a contract of more than 10k with the federal government (or in some cases a contract of any amount), and there is no other employment discrimination law that covers you, you have potentially lost your protections against employment discrimination. This exception will impact some people but is a far cry from the claims that the new Executive Order makes employment discrimination legal.

In short: Employment discrimination is still against the law. Employees: Know your rights. Employers: know your obligations.

In an article published in Law360 on January 16, 2025, Veronica Nannis and Viriginia Grimm discuss the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which was announced five months ago by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division.

The attorneys discuss the details of the program, which were developed to fill gaps that exist with existing initiatives such as the DOJ’s qui tam program and other agency whistleblower programs. Under the new pilot program, a whistleblower who provides information about corporate misconduct may be eligible for an award.

Nannis and Grimm highlight early returns of the program, including statements that 250 tips were reported in the first few months. However, they note other more established programs, such as the SEC’s Whistleblower Program, received approximately 24,980 tips in 2024.

While the program has been successful to some, others have been more critical, Nannis and Grimm write. The program lacks many of the important aspects of other established programs and has holes that could “disincentivize” potential whistleblowers from coming forward.

They conclude with a discussion of the fate of the program under the new presidential administration.

“The program could be in peril if it were to become politicized,” Nannis and Grime explain. “Advocates and interested parties on all sides would be wise to keep an eye on this program and any developments, especially as the new administration takes over.”

Read the article “Examining DOJ Corporate Whistleblower Pilot’s First 100 Days” on the Law360 website (subscription required).

In an article published on January 13, 2025, by Healio, Brian Markovitz and Mathew Seeburger explain the timeline of the Federal Trade Commission’s noncompete ban as well as its future under the Trump administration.

Markovitz and Seeburger explain that the ban is likely to be revoked moving forward due to the free-market business approach the FTC is expected to follow, including rejecting regulation.

Without a federal ban, they write, regulation of noncompete agreements will be up to state and local governments. Currently, only four states fully prohibit these agreements, whereas 33 states and the District of Columbia impose restrictions. As states create new laws and regulations fall into various categories, it will be important for all employees and contractors to know the requirements in their specific jurisdictions.

Whether the national noncompete ban falls through as expected or it lives, there will be significant implications for the healthcare industry, Markovitz and Seeburger conclude.

“To ensure compliance,” they explain, “both employers and employees should carefully review state and local requirements and consult local legal counsel if necessary.”

Read the article “Trump administration will likely kill the FTC’s controversial noncompete rule.” (PDF)

JGL Law Clerk Mathew Seeburger won the George J. Skuros’ Justice in Family Law Scholarship for his essay “Religious Rights, Custody and Divorce: Navigating Injustices in American Family Law.”

In the essay, Mathew discusses ways to improve the legal framework for making custody decisions involving religious considerations. He argues that adopting a stricter test could enhance consistency in evaluations, ensuring fair outcomes for both parents and children while safeguarding their well-being.

In an article published on January 3, 2025, by Law360, Veronica Nannis was quoted about JGL’s representation of Thomas Fischer, the former chief financial officer of Community Health Network, who filed a False Claims Act (FCA) case on behalf of the United States and the State of Indiana more than ten years ago. Fischer recently settled the remaining claims, which included both non-intervened FCA claims and Fischer’s employment related claims. JGL was lead counsel for Fischer on the FCA claims.

The $135 million FCA settlement, which was reached in December 2024, ends the federal healthcare fraud claims brought by Fischer, a whistleblower, or “relator” under the FCA, who filed suit on behalf of the governments based on detailed insider knowledge of fraud. Notably, the deal was reached a year after the Indiana healthcare system agreed to pay $345 million to settle FCA allegations from the government in a qui tam action in December 2023. Community Health also paid $20.3 million in 2015 to resolve civil allegations that it submitted false claims to Medicare and Medicaid programs. Taken together, Community Health has now paid more than half a billion dollars in three False Claims Act settlements in the last decade.

Veronica Nannis, who represented Fischer, in addition to JGL attorneys Jay Holland, Steven Pavsner and Virginia Grimm, said the $135 million settlement is a testament to the nature of the FCA, which allows private individuals to file suit on behalf of the government. “It shows the genius of the FCA — allowing the government to focus on some of the claims while the relator takes the laboring oar on the other claims. This is often the best way to ensure maximum recovery for the taxpayer.”

This settlement resolves claims brought by Fischer on behalf of the governments after the governments declined to intervene. Fischer alleged that Community Health overpaid employed physicians, as well as those who worked for an independent oncology group that contracted exclusively with Community Health, and that the excessive payments were made to ensure that the physicians sent their patients to Community Health facilities – a violation of federal and state laws, including the Stark Law – which prohibit payments of any kind to physicians to influence where they treat or refer patients. Fischer also alleged that Community Health paid above-fair market value rent to a physician-owned real estate partnership to induce the physician owners to refer patients to a Community Health owned ambulatory surgical center in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute.

Continue reading the Law360 article “Hospital Org Inks $135M Deal To End Ex-CFO’s Fraud Claims.”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) on December 26, 2024, in Texas Top Cop Shop, et al. v. Merrick Garland, et al., No. 24-40792 (5th Cir. 2024). As a result, companies are not currently required to file a Beneficial Ownership Information Report (BOIR).

Texas Top Cop Shop is one of several lawsuits, including National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 1, 2024), which could permanently alter the CTA. While entities are not currently required to file a BOIR, they should monitor Texas Top Cop Shop and National Small Business United closely and be prepared to file a BOIR should the status quo change.

The CTA’s Reporting Rule

The CTA requires certain businesses to provide ownership information to federal law enforcement agencies for anti-terrorism purposes. The U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) recently finalized a new reporting rule that requires companies to identify “beneficial owners” and “Company applicants” in an effort to obtain increased transparency. Get more information about the reporting rule.

The rule was created to combat bad actors who operate through corporate entities and behind a curtain of anonymity. The rule became effective on January 1, 2024, but has been challenged by pro-business groups that claim the CTA is unconstitutional. The federal government was enjoined from enforcing the CTA on December 26, 2024.

The Fifth Circuit’s Injunction

The Texas Top Cop Shop plaintiffs sued several federal agencies alleging that the CTA’s mandated disclosure of anonymous owners violates the First and Fourth Amendments. Tex. Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218294, *21–22 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2024). They also argue that the CTA impinges on States rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by, among other things, regulating interstate commerce. Id. The District Court agreed with the plaintiffs, found that the CTA violates the Tenth Amendment, and entered an injunction halting enforcement of the CTA on December 3, 2024. Id. at *116.

Defendants immediately appealed the District Court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On December 23, 2024, the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction, reinstated the CTA, and set an expedited briefing schedule for the parties. Tex. Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218294 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2024). The FinCEN website immediately promulgated new deadlines for compliance with the CTA’s reporting rule in response to the Fifth Circuit’s decision. [Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, https://fincen.gov/boi (last visited Jan. 2, 2025).]

But, on December 26, 2024, the Fifth Circuit again reversed course, and a separate panel vacated the stay entered just three days prior. It revived the injunction to “preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the” validity of the underlying claims. Tex. Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32702 (5th Cir. Dec. 26, 2024). As a result, enforcement of the CTA was again enjoined, and its reporting requirements halted.

On December 27, 2024, the FinCEN website (Supra, note 2) issued the following alert:

In light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

There have been no updates since the Fifth Circuit’s December 26, 2024, decision but companies should monitor the case closely. While companies are currently exempt, they should be prepared to file a BOIR if the injunction is dissolved.

Second Record-Breaking Settlement Paid by Community Health Network in one Year; Third False Claims Act Settlement for Hospital Network in Last Ten Years

January 2, 2025 GREENBELT – Indiana-based Community Health Network (Community) settled the second half of a healthcare fraud case for $135 million. This settlement is the culmination of the False Claims Act (FCA) case brought by whistleblower and former Community Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer Thomas P. Fischer on behalf of the United States and State of Indiana more than ten years ago.

This settlement would have represented the largest settlement in a case of its type (by $20 million) but for the fact that the United States and Community settled the first part of Mr. Fischer’s case for $345 million last December. Taken together with its $20.3 million settlement with DOJ in 2015, Community has now paid more than half a billion dollars in three False Claims Act settlements in the last decade.

The settlement comes after Mr. Fischer sued his former employer, Community. Fischer is a whistleblower, or “relator” under the FCA, who filed suit on behalf of the governments based on detailed insider knowledge of fraud. Along with the settlement of the governments’ claims, Mr. Fischer and Community also resolved his employment-related claims.

This settlement resolves allegations that Community overpaid employed physicians (both physicians directly employed by Community and an independent oncology group – Community Hospital Oncology Providers – who contracted exclusively with Community). The suit alleged that the excessive payments to physicians were paid to ensure that they sent their patients to Community facilities – in violation of federal and state laws, including the Stark Law — which prohibit payments of any kind, including inflated salaries, to physicians to influence where they treat or refer patients.

This settlement also includes allegations that Community paid above-fair market value rent to a physician-owned real estate partnership to induce the physician owners to refer patients to a Community owned ambulatory surgical center in violation of the Anti-kickback Statute. While the settlement last December was for claims prosecuted by the United States, these newly-settled claims were for those prosecuted by Mr. Fischer on behalf of the governments after they declined to intervene.

Describing the combination of intervened and non-intervened claims, Mr. Fischer’s counsel Veronica Nannis of Joseph Greenwald and Laake commented, “This historic settlement is a testament to the public-private partnership unique to the FCA. It shows the genius of the FCA – allowing the government to focus on some of the claims, while the relator takes the laboring oar on the other claims. This is often the best way to ensure maximum recovery for the taxpayer.”

JGL Partner Jay Holland echoed the sentiment, “This record settlement demonstrates the important contribution whistleblowers can make even when the government declines a case. As lead counsel on this contentious litigation, we are so proud of the exemplary work of our JGL team, including our colleagues Steven Pavsner and Virginia Grimm. At our side, our co-counsel firms formed a formidable team that was able to prosecute a vigorously defended case by large, national law firms.”

JGL Partner Steve Pavsner, who deposed Community’s outside counsel, in-house counsel, principal executives, outside consultant, and board members, added: “Hopefully, this litigation will serve as a warning to others that the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rules need to be followed.”

Fischer reflected, “This has been a long journey – more than ten years and thousands of hours of work – and I couldn’t have done it without the unwavering support of my wife, Gayle.”

Mr. Fischer stated that his efforts were intended to hold the Community executives and its board of directors accountable for their actions. Further, he complimented the thousands of hard-working and honest Community employees who have dedicated their lives to patient care.

Fischer continued, “I am profoundly grateful for the diligence, persistence and skill of the great government teams (both the US and Indiana) that worked on this case – especially lead DOJ attorney Arthur DiDio – and the incredible efforts of my legal team who represented me throughout.”

Fischer hopes this settlement will encourage other whistleblowers. “I hope these settlements will help empower and inspire others working in healthcare organizations across the country to speak up and speak out if and when they see potential fraud – both internally within their organizations and, if internal whistleblowing doesn’t work, to report to the government.”

“These claims are not mere technicalities; they directly affect patients, hospital employees and the high cost of healthcare. This settlement puts money back into the healthcare system and is a victory for Indiana and federal taxpayers,” Fischer said.

Fischer’s Indianapolis attorney Kathleen DeLaney added, “We are pleased to have reached a global settlement with Community which also resolves Mr. Fischer’s individual retaliation and employment-based legal claims ten years after his wrongful termination.”

For DeLaney and Fischer’s other counsel, Tim McCormack, this has been a 10-plus year journey.

“I could not be prouder of Mr. Fischer’s tenacity,” said McCormack. “Cases like this are vital to keeping financial incentives away from medical judgment. Without a brave insider like Mr. Fischer, willing to speak up and then blow the whistle, Community likely would have gotten away with alleged fraud.”

Mr. McCormack continued: “After three False Claims Act settlements worth more than half a billion dollars in the last ten years, it will be interesting to see what steps Community takes to reform its physician compensation and billing practices. With this case, both DOJ and the Indiana Attorney General’s Office have demonstrated their tenacious commitment to fighting suspected healthcare fraud.”

The case is U.S. and State of Indiana ex rel Fischer v. Community Health Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-1215-RLY-MKK. Fischer is represented by lead counsel Veronica Nannis, Jay Holland, Steven Pavsner and Virginia Grimm, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake; Timothy McCormack, Michael Smith, Elizabeth Quinby, and Michael Hanify, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP; Bruce Greenberg and Anthony Zatkos, Lite DePalma; and local and employment counsel Kathleen DeLaney and Anna Conklin, DeLaney & DeLaney LLC. The government’s team was led by Arthur DiDio of the DOJ, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana Zachary A. Myers and Civil Chief for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Indiana, Shelese Woods; Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita; Director of the Indiana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Matthew Whitmire, and Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Carcare.

What will Trump’s second term look like at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)? Initially, policy change may not move as fast as one might expect because three Commissioners will remain Democratic at least for the first two years of Trump’s term. However, Trump will likely appoint Andrea Lucas, the Commission’s sole Republican, as the EEOC Chair and hire a new general counsel, replacing Karla Gilbride, who has been a champion for worker’s rights.

Moreover, given Trump’s statements and statements from his supporters, including Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, the EEOC’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs such as the DEI Workshop Series conducted by the EEOC Training Institute are likely to go by the wayside quickly. Employers can also anticipate not being concerned with providing their LGBTQ+ workforce with as expansive rights as those seen under the Biden Administration. For example, LGBTQ+ employees’ rights such as using bathrooms that correspond to an employee’s gender identity are not likely to be enforced or reversed altogether.

The EEOC’s interpretations of the 2023 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which provides workplace accommodations for physical or mental conditions related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, is also likely to be more restrictive. This means that expansive interpretations of the PWFA covering abortion, menopause, and infertility are less likely. Employees can also expect a consolidation of the EEOC’s workforce and not filling openings once federal employees leave or retire. As a result, cases will take longer to process and investigate due to fewer employees at the EEOC, including investigators. In sum, the next two years are likely to be one of little enforcement, stagnation, and a reduction in the protections for the LGBTQ+ workforce as well as for pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions.

Subscribe