Author: JGL Law

For most, social media is now a ubiquitous tool that connects us to friends, family, and the world. We share our triumphs and tribulations, often in real-time. But in the emotionally charged arena of a divorce action, seemingly harmless posts, photos, and comments could have significant consequences. This blog entry will explore the hidden dangers lurking behind your social media posts and provide some general ideas on how to navigate your digital landscape during a divorce.

While seemingly innocuous, your online activity can be, and often is, used as evidence in divorce proceedings. Here’s how:

• Proof of Adultery or Inappropriate Behavior: Photos and posts documenting romantic relationships, late-night outings, or even suggestive comments can be used as evidence of adultery or other behavior. Even if the posts are not public, they are generally susceptible to discovery through subpoenas or forensic analysis.
• Financial Discrepancies: Exhibiting lavish purchases, vacations, or new assets while claiming financial hardship in court can damage your credibility to a judge.
• Parental Fitness Concerns: Posts depicting excessive partying, including alcohol use, even if it is responsible, can often lead to questions being raised about parental fitness. Caution should be employed when your posts depict routine partying, drinking, etc.
• Contradictory Statements: Statements made on social media can contradict statements made under oath or in legal documents. For instance, the claim that you are unable to work due to health reasons and therefore you need support, but you post pictures of a recent ski-trip may cause a court to question your credibility.
• Evidence of Harassment or Disparaging Remarks: Using social media to harass, threaten, or disparage your spouse can not only negatively impact your case but can also lead to separate legal issues, such as protective orders. Additionally, in the event that custody is at issue, it can lead to you being viewed in an adverse light due to your perceived inability to show proper judgment.
• Location and Activity Tracking: Check-ins, location tags, and posts about your activities can be used to establish your whereabouts and contradict claims about your schedule or parenting time.

The best approach to social media during a divorce is caution. This does not mean avoiding social media altogether, but rather, being more judicious with how and what you post. Here are some essential tips:

• Privacy Settings Are Not Foolproof: Increasing your privacy settings is a good first step, but does not guarantee your protection. Assume anything you post can be seen by the court.
• Refrain from Posting About Your Divorce: Avoid discussing your case, your spouse, or any related matters online. This includes venting your frustrations, celebrating perceived victories, or seeking advice from friends.
• Think Before You Post: Before you post, consider the potential implications, including foreseeable comments. Ask yourself: Could this be misinterpreted or used against me?
• Preserve Evidence: Just as social media can be a tool used against you, it is one that you can wield as well. Therefore, if you believe your spouse’s social media activity is relevant to your case, take screenshots and preserve them in a secure location. This information should be shared with your attorney.
• Consult with Your Attorney: Before making any decisions regarding social media, including pausing your social media presence, discuss your concerns and strategies with your Maryland family law attorney who can provide you with specific advice based on your case.

Conclusion:

Navigating a divorce is already complex and emotionally challenging. Don’t let social media exacerbate vulnerabilities in your case. By understanding the potential benefits and pitfalls of social media, you can take proactive steps to protect yourself and minimize your risks. If you are considering or involved in a divorce in Maryland, contact an experienced family law attorney to discuss your case and develop a comprehensive legal strategy. Your online activity matters – treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

On the heels of the federal court decision allowing JGL’s class action race discrimination suit against MSP to go forward, JGL is glad to see that DOJ’s investigation into discrimination at MSP warranted MSP seeking approval to pay a $2.75 million settlement.

Click to read full details and Jay Holland’s quote in this Washington Post article (PDF)

This coming term, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether former firefighter Karyn Stanley can proceed with her disability claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) against her former employer, the City of Sanford, Florida.

Ms. Stanley is a retiree, who was forced to retire because of symptoms related to her Parkinson’s Disease. Ms. Stanley, who receives disability retirement from the city, filed suit under the ADA claiming that the city’s retirement benefits plan discriminates based upon disability. When Ms. Stanley first started with the department, the City’s plan granted retirees free health insurance until age 65, but the plan subsequently changed, covering disabled retirees for only two years after leaving the city’s employ.

The ADA states that employers cannot “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to … terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” The ADA specifically defines who is a “qualified individual” that is subject to its protections. People qualify if they “can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires[.]”

So, what does “holds or desires” mean? The federal appeals courts, the lower courts directly below the U.S. Supreme Court, are split on this issue. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Ms. Stanley’s case that the ADA does not apply to former employees because they neither hold (currently fill) nor desire to hold (aka are applicants for) positions of employment. The Second and Third Circuits hold otherwise that the ADA does apply to former employees because the ADA must be read consistent with Title VII, the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, gender and national origin, which allows former employees to pursue discrimination claims. The Supreme Court will almost certainly resolve and put an end to this circuit court split. Given the Supreme Court’s recent leanings on employment claims before it, I do not expect Ms. Stanley to prevail. Thereafter, employees’ only hope may be that a friendlier Congress is in place to make the final decision by amending the ADA.

NBC News covered the recent Federal court decision which allows the discrimination suit against the Maryland State Police (MSP) to proceed. The lawsuit alleges that the state police agency has a longstanding pattern of discrimination against officers of color. Officers who work at the MSP describe it as a racist work environment.

“We want a police force that promotes officers based on merit, that holds officers accountable for true misconduct and doesn’t mete out discipline in truly discriminatory ways,” said Michal Shinnar, who represents Byron Tribue, a current officer, along with two other current and former officers who are suing the department. All say they have been victims of discrimination and retaliation that have affected their careers.

“This is not the story of one individual like Mr. Tribue who has been harmed by discrimination. These are patterns and practices that exist in the Maryland State Police,” Shinnar said.

The officers who are suing the department said they hope this will become a class action lawsuit in which additional officers can get involved.

You can view the news clip here.

In an article published in The Baltimore Sun on September 16, 2024, Michal Shinnar applauded a federal judge’s ruling that a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Maryland State Police (MSP) can move forward. “We think that this is a great ruling for plaintiffs, in terms of allowing this important case to move forward, and rejecting the arguments that MSP had made about why it should be dismissed,” Shinnar said.

The lawsuit, which asked a judge to certify class action status on behalf of employees of color, dates to 2022 when three named plaintiffs alleged the state police force has a longstanding pattern of discrimination through discipline, retaliation against officers who make complaints and denied promotions. The state police sought to have the complaint dismissed in federal court, but the court ruled that some of the claims against the statewide police agency could move to the discovery stage.

Read the article “Federal judge rules racial discrimination lawsuit against Maryland State Police can continue.”

In an article published on September 11, 2024, by The Daily Record, Veronica Nannis explains the U.S. Department of Justice’s new pilot program for corporate whistleblowers and the added incentives it provides.

“The way that I see this program is that it’s yet one more incentive for both whistleblowers and for companies,” Nannis said.” “Right now, the False Claims Act is a really good incentive for whistleblowers to bring forth information they have regarding civil fraud, and it’s meant to be a pretty good deterrent for companies to not engage in that fraud. I think this program just complements the others and it’s filling the gaps.”

Nannis adds that the pilot program incentivizes the identification and disclosure of criminal activity, which the False Claims Act does not cover.

For the full article, Daily Record subscribers can click here.

To view the article as a PDF, click here.

Joseph Greenwald & Laake will sponsor the Catholic Charities Legal Network Golf Tournament on September 23, 2024. The 21st annual tournament will be held at Bretton Woods in Germantown, MD.

For more than two decades, the annual golf tournament has supported the pro bono legal services that the Catholic Charities Legal Network provides to low-income people in the greater Washington, D.C., area.

In an article published on September 10, 2024, in The Daily Record, Paul Riekhof discusses the estate planning changes individuals need to take once their divorce is final to ensure that their children or other beneficiaries are provided for in the event of their passing and to prevent their ex-spouse from receiving an unintentional windfall.

Paul notes that Maryland law does provide some help to people who do not take the initiative to change their estate plans upon divorce, but it does not do a very good job – certainly not as well as addressing these issues directly. For example, a divorce decree will revoke all provisions in a will and a revocable living trust that benefit or empower an ex-spouse but will not produce a similar automatic impact on predivorce beneficiary designations. Another complicating issue is that many assets governed by beneficiary designations may also be subject to federal law, which generally preempts state law.

Click here to read “How does a divorce impact predivorce estate planning?” (PDF) for a complete list of the changes that may need to be made to your estate plan once your divorce is final.

Erika Jacobsen White will moderate “Summary Judgment and Discovery Disputes in Employment Cases: Perspectives from the Bench” on September 12 at the United States District Court, Greenbelt Division.

Speakers for the event include:

1. Hon. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge
2. Hon. Matthew J. Maddox, District Judge
3. Hon. Ajmel Quereshi, Magistrate Judge
4. Hon. Gina L. Simms, Magistrate Judge 

A panel discussion will be held from 4:00 to 5:30 pm and will be followed by a reception from 5:30 to 7:00 pm.

Joseph Greenwald & Laake is sponsoring the program, which is being hosted by the Labor & Employment Law Section of the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA). Erika serves as a Section Council Member of the MSBA’s Labor & Employment Law Section.

Click here to register for the event.

Charles Winegardner and Winegardner Ford LLC were awarded a $5.7 million jury verdict against Ford Motor Company in a contract dispute over Winegardner’s purchase of another dealership, Hunt Ford. Timothy Maloney represented the Winegardners at the trial.

The case, which involved a 2019 agreement between Winegardner and Hunt, provided that Hunt Ford would sell its acquired assets and dealership property to Winegardner. A dispute arose when Ford Motor Company exercised a right of first refusal to take away Winegardner’s contract to purchase Hunt Ford and give the dealership to another dealer.

Tim told The Daily Record, “Ford Motor Company should have never interfered with the Winegardners’ contract. Since 2009, the Maryland legislature has prohibited auto manufacturers from enforcing rights of first refusal in dealer contracts.” Tim also noted that the Winegardners “would have been very successful” had they been allowed to execute their contract and purchase the Ford dealership. “The jury verdict is no substitute for what the Winegardners ultimately could have done if their contract had not been interfered with. They could have really made something of this Hunt Ford dealership and they knew it.”

Click here to read “Multi-Million Dollar Jury Verdict for Car Dealership” from The Daily Record (PDF)

Are you starting a new job? Every employee should take basic steps to protect themselves when starting a new position.

The Basic Rule

The basic rule of thumb is to save all documents you sign and employer policies. That big stack of things you signed when onboarding? Save all of those, and not just on a company device: you should save it on a personal device or cloud (e.g. in your email, a cloud drive, or on your home computer). If your employer didn’t give you a copy of all the documents you signed, you should ask for a copy for your records. And it should go without saying that you should read these documents and understand them, and consult with a lawyer if you have questions.

If your employer updates /changes these documents at any point, save a copy of the new version in addition to the older version.

Common Important Documents to Save

• Employment Contract
• Non-Compete Agreement
• Arbitration Agreement
• Job Offer
• Benefits Information (including health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, 401k, pensions, travel stipends, etc.).
• Employee Handbook & All Other Employment Policies (your employer probably has written policies that govern your job and/or those you work with, from compensation; hours; leave; performance evaluations; Performance Improvement Plans; discipline; terminations; reimbursing expenses; dress codes; technology policies; social media policies; anti-discrimination policies; where and how to report discrimination and/or other misconduct such as fraud, safety concerns, etc.). Also- review these policies and familiarize yourself with them!

Why Should I Save These Documents?

Even if it seems like your dream job, no one can be certain about what the future holds. You may need these documents to ensure you are complying with company policies, or if you have a medical emergency (or even death) and your family needs to assist, or if you find yourself suddenly terminated and lose access to your work computer and email. Taking the time to do this can make a big difference down the road.

Use Your Personal Email and Phone Number for Pay & Benefits Accounts!

When setting up any pay and/or benefits accounts, make sure to use your personal email and/or phone, not your work contact information. This includes payroll accounts, 401(k)s, other retirement accounts, health insurance, life insurance, and any other account for benefits offered by your employer. You may need to access these accounts even after you are no longer working there, and if log ins and/or verification codes require access to your work account, you may not be able to log in without contacting the company.

On October 1, 2024, Maryland’s Pay Transparency Law takes effect. The law broadly applies to essentially all employers “physically perform[ing]” work in some capacity in the state of Maryland regardless of their size.

The law is an attempt to expand the state’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, which prohibits discriminating against employees based on their gender or sex identity, usually almost without exception when women are paid less for doing the same job as their male counterparts.

Importantly, applicants for positions can “before a discussion of compensation is held” or “at any other time” request to know all the compensation for the positions for which they are applying, including the applicable low-to-high range of wages and benefits. The law specifically prohibits employers from retaliating in any way against applicants and current employees, who request such information, including by “refus[ing] to interview, hire, or employ an applicant for employment” or refusing to “promote or transfer” a current employee. Failure to follow these specific requirements of the Act during the applicable three-year period can result in a repeat offender-employer being fined up to $600 for each employee or applicant “for whom the employer is not in compliance[.]”

The law also contains certain recordkeeping requirements for employers for a three-year period after a position is filled or, if the position was not filled, from the date of the posting of the position. This recordkeeping includes keeping the wages of employees and job classifications and producing them to the Maryland Department of Labor’s Division of Labor and Industry upon request.

Notably, there is no private right action, meaning employees and applicants cannot file a lawsuit to exercise their rights under the law. Therefore, employees and applicants are reliant upon the already overburdened Maryland Department of Labor’s Division of Labor and Industry to fine employers and force compliance. Consequently, it remains to be seen whether the new law will put a dent in any Maryland employers’ sexist pay practices.