Author: JGL Law

JGL principal Veronica Nannis will present on a panel at the D.C. Bar’s March 18, 2025, remote program “Could My Client Be a Whistleblower? How to Identify Potential Whistleblower Clients and What to Do Next.” JGL associate Gia Grimm will moderate the event.

The event will be hosted by the bar association’s Labor & Employment Steering Committee. JGL principal Erika Jacobsen White is a member of the committee and helped develop the program.

During the event, panelists will share their expertise on identifying potential whistleblower clients and the subsequent steps to take. The program is designed to equip employment attorneys with the knowledge and tools needed to recognize whistleblower claims and navigate the complexities of such cases. Speakers will also provide practical guidance on key indicators that your employment client may have a whistleblower claim, the legal framework and protections available to whistleblowers, best practices for advising and representing whistleblower clients, and strategies for effectively litigating whistleblower cases. Attendees will gain valuable insights into the nuances of whistleblower law and learn how to advocate for their clients effectively.

Learn more and register for the remote program.

In Houser v. Houser, 262 Md. App. 473 (2024), the Appellate Court of Maryland upheld a circuit court ruling that rejected a child support waiver agreement between two parents.

The court affirmed that child support is a legal obligation upon a parent and one that cannot be waived by agreement of the parties, reinforcing Maryland’s public policy position in favor of assuring financial support for children by their parents. The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari and will hear arguments on March 3, 2025. The case has garnered significant attention, as its outcome could have a meaningful impact on the legal landscape surrounding parental autonomy in child support agreements.

Key Issues in Houser v. Houser

At the heart of Houser v. Houser is the question of whether parents have the constitutional right to agree that no child support will be paid, even when both parents are financially capable of providing for the child. The circuit court refused to accept such an agreement and instead applied Maryland’s statutory child support guidelines, despite the parents’ mutual agreement to the contrary.

While adversarial in designation, the parties were aligned in their appellate positions and argued, among many arguments, that their agreement was in the best interests of their child and that the court’s refusal to honor it violated their fundamental rights under the United States Supreme Court opinion of Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). The Appellate Court rejected this argument, distinguishing Troxel as addressing physical custody rights as opposed to parental agreements regarding financial obligations to their children.

Why a Further Appeal Matters

A Maryland Supreme Court decision on this matter could have far-reaching implications for family law. Here’s why:

1. Clarification of Parental Autonomy vs. State Interest

This case presents an opportunity for the Maryland high court to delineate the boundaries between a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions for their child and the state’s role in ensuring financial support for children. While prior cases establish that parents cannot waive child support obligations, the parents in Houser argue that their financial arrangement serves the best interests of their child. A ruling from the Supreme Court of Maryland offers an opportunity to provide further clarification as to whether or not Maryland courts may honor such agreements.

2. Potential Shift in Child Support Law

Maryland law currently mandates that courts use child support guidelines unless applying them would be “unjust or inappropriate.” However, courts rarely deviate from these guidelines unless exceptional circumstances exist. If the Supreme Court of Maryland rules in favor of the parents in Houser, the door could open for parties and litigators alike to enjoy more flexibility regarding child support arrangements, particularly in high-income cases where the guidelines may be seen as excessive or unnecessary.

3. Addressing Public Policy Concerns

The Appellate Court of Maryland emphasized a strong public policy position that a child’s right to receive support cannot be waived by a parent. While critics argue that rigid application of child support guidelines may not always reflect the nuanced realities of co-parenting, the state (in this instance, the court) is duty bound to protect the best interests of minor child by way of the State’s role as parens patriae. Therefore, an opportunity, such as this matter, to balance such significant interests is rare.

4. Impact on Future Custody and Support Agreements

Of course, the significance of this matter is only realized against the backdrop of the countless cases that will follow wherein parents seek to negotiate child support terms. Any seasoned practitioner of Maryland family law understands that a downward deviation of child support is not a straightforward proposition, much less a deviation to zero. Therefore, an appellate decision that will determine the extent of parental authority regarding child support is notable. If the Supreme Court of Maryland upholds the ruling, it will reinforce the principle that child support is an obligation with very little room for negotiation, if any, potentially deterring parents from attempting similar agreements in the future. If it reverses, then there may be a shift toward greater judicial deference to parental decision-making in financial matters, impacting custody settlements and child support agreements statewide.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Maryland’s forthcoming review of Houser v. Houser is poised to be a notable decision in family law. Whether it reaffirms the strict application of child support guidelines or allows for some degree of parental discretion, the ruling will shape the legal landscape for years to come. Like me, family law practitioners and parents with child support disputes should closely follow this case, as its resolution could redefine how Maryland courts balance parental rights with the state’s interest in child support.

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.

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.