Author: JGL Law

Firm principal Jay Holland and Joseph Greenwald & Laake were sponsors of EveryMind’s anniversary gala on Wednesday, Oct. 18. Formerly known as the Mental Health Association of Montgomery County, the organization celebrated 60 years of dedication to providing mental wellness resources and advocacy to individuals and communities.

The gala honored mental health champions, such as U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen and news anchor Doreen Gentzler of Changing Minds, News4’s campaign to shed light on mental health issues. Ten JGL attorneys attended the gala, including Reza Golesorkhi, Vijay Mani, Jerry Miller, Eleanor Hunt, Veronica Nannis, Jason Sarfati and Timothy Maloney.

EveryMind is dedicated to changing stigma surrounding mental health, while also providing mental wellness services. Everyone, from children to senior citizens, can benefit from the organization’s programs. Their initiatives include educational seminars for the general public and professionals, counseling services and a crisis hotline.

Last Tuesday members of Prince George’s County and the Maryland legal community gathered to celebrate Neal T. Conway’s commitment to making justice accessible for all. The event included a keynote presentation by JGL principal Timothy F. Maloney and was attended by a dozen JGL team members. 

Conway currently serves as the chief financial officer of Community Legal Services, a nonprofit organization based in Prince George’s County. He began working with the organization as an intake paralegal, before moving up the ladder to become executive director and eventually to his current board position.

Community Legal Services works directly with low income members of the Prince George’s community. They provide legal advice, representation and education regarding civil law at little or no cost. 

We may not all know the term emoji, but we have all seen them or used them. Emojis are small digital images or icons used to express an idea or emotion online. The term is only a couple of decades old and derives from the Japanese words e, a picture, and moji, a letter or character.

Emojis are cute, fun . . . and, at the risk of being a buzz-kill, can get you in a whole lot of legal trouble. As a labor and employment lawyer, I have seen that “emoji law” is becoming a larger and larger factor in litigation, particularly in cases that involve allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination.

In fact, employment attorneys should now start thinking about setting up emoji-awareness seminars for companies on how emojis are creating new questions, and perhaps conflicts, in workplaces. It’s quite appropriate to ask, “Is that winky-face emoji friendly, flirtatious or an instance of sexual harassment?”

I see three basic issues emerging from the use of emojis in the workplace. First, they are slang, and slang means different things to different people. In different cultures, a symbol may mean widely disparate things. For example, the “hands-up” symbol is a positive sign for most Americans, but for Chinese people, it is dismissive and means “stay away from me.”

The use of slang leads to misunderstandings in many contexts. For example, I saw tennis star Roger Federer being interviewed on TV, and a reporter asked him, “Why are you called a GOAT? Do you raise farm animals?” The reporter did not realize that GOAT is often used in sports slang as an abbreviation for the Greatest of All Time.  In fact there is a GOAT emoji. 

Secondly, the use of emojis can be said to imply a lack of seriousness and can take away from the significance of your message. If a boss receives an email from a subordinate that contains a smiley-face emoji, she may not take the message seriously. In other words, emojis can convey a credibility issue.

Furthermore, emojis can be racially coded or coded for gender without the writer even knowing it. An emoji with a certain skin color, if sent to a minority employee by a supervisor, can later serve as evidence of a racially hostile work environment. The standard that the courts use in these cases is whether the harassment is severe or pervasive – and emojis can be evidence showing that the harassment is indeed pervasive. This can create serious problems for employers since under the rules of discovery, these emojis can and will be turned over to the opposing party in litigation.

The broad lesson is that workplace communications simply should not be the same as casual conversations with our friends. They need to be formal and businesslike – and the use of emojis in business conversations can come back to haunt the employer.

In addition, emojis can be misinterpreted. There is often no consensus on what emotions an emoji is intended to represent. In a casual chat with a friend, any ambiguity can be readily cleared up, but in the workplace, a misinterpretation can linger and result in difficult questions in litigation.

In fact, I would advise a law firm that the use of emojis in communications between associates and partners, or between lawyers and clients, is never appropriate. The risk is just too high. Now, other companies have different cultures. It might be different in a small startup high-tech company, where the culture is far more informal. But for most companies, if you want to be safe, the risk of confusion and the risk of the emoji being used as courtroom evidence are just too great.

In fact, companies’ style manuals for staff ought to include policies on the use of emojis. It’s wise for employers to evaluate this issue and to understand how the use of emojis can create serious risks.

The event, titled “CLE: LGBT Parentage and Marriage Issues: An Essential Family Law Update and Analysis,” provided an up-to-date analysis and practical review of family law, LGBT parentage and marriage issues in the wake of cases such as Obergefell, Schmidt and Conover. 

Jeffrey Greenblatt has over 43 years of experience representing individuals in complex, emotionally-charged family law matters in Maryland. He has a strong emphasis in areas such as divorce, alimony, child custody and protective orders, and is a compassionate advocate for each one of his clients. He is also a pioneer in the emerging area of family law, Gray Divorce, or the divorce of couples over 50 years old.

The New York Times and The New Yorker first reported the accusations by more than a  dozen women that accused Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault or rape. More women came forward following the reports, and soon after, the Weinstein Company board of directors fired Weinstein from the company.

Holland told The Wrap, “The fact of the matter is that Harvey Weinstein was the face of the company, and he ran the company. And if he sexually harassed these women, the company might automatically be liable.”

Holland also predicted that the potential liability means that the company will almost certainly cease to exist as an enterprise, as reports have shown that the company is discussing a fire sale of its assets. Click the image below for the full article.

Jay Holland is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group, and the chair of the firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice. He is a renowned employment and qui tam litigator known for taking on tough cases and achieving exceptional results. 

Principal Ann Grover, sponsored and participated in the Montgomery County Bar Foundation’s 25th Annual Golf, Tennis Charity Classic & Silent Auction.  JGL attorneys Matthew Focht and Matthew Kreiser teamed up and won their flight in the tournament.  The event has a special significance, as it serves as the primary fundraising event for many of the bar foundation’s community outreach programs.

Due to its charitable cause, the event drew a large crowd of golfers and non-golfers alike. Participants received a sleeve of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake Titleist golf balls and tees (most of which can now be found now in the woods and lakes at Manor Golf Course). 

In addition to the golf tournament the event also featured a tennis game and a silent auction. The tournament was held at Manor Country Club in Rockville Maryland.  

Holland supplied some insight on the employment rights of NFL players if his team, or the NFL, were to fire a player for “taking a knee?”  Could the player claim discrimination or retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Would the player have any success under the prohibition against retaliation under the National Labor Relations Act?  The answers hinge on whether the discrimination or retaliation was related to workplace conditions.

Jay Holland is the chair of Joseph Greenwald & Laake’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice. He is a renowned employment and qui tam litigator known for taking on tough cases and achieving exceptional results. 

Click the image below for the full article:

Instant messaging has become an increasingly popular way for businesses to facilitate communication and collaboration. With these informal shorthand communication methods has come the rise of the pictographic characters known as emoji. While emoji can generally be a fun way for people to communicate, many lawyers are now encouraging employees to keep them out of business communication. 

Emoji-use can be misconstrued between multiple parties, and sometimes, the meaning of a particular emoji can change depending on the context and culture in which it’s used. It can also create problems in terms of workplace misunderstandings, in terms of areas like gender and race, that could potentially lead to legal issues down the line. In this podcast, Jay discusses that, and encourages the use of emoji-awareness seminars to educate employers and employees on the potential legal dangers of this type of informal communication.

To hear the full podcast, click here.

Jay Holland is the chair of Joseph Greenwald & Laake’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice. He is a renowned employment and qui tam litigator known for taking on tough cases and achieving exceptional results. 

The decision is regarding if employment agreements can bar workers from pursuing employment-related claims in class action lawsuits. This comes after the Supreme Court heard arguments from three consolidated cases regarding the question. Although it’s likely a decision won’t be reached for another year or so, several lawyers have voiced their opinions and concerns.

To read Markovitz’s opinion and to read the full article click the image below: