Joseph Greenwald & Laake Blog
Kathy: Jeremy, I know a large part of your practice involves whistleblower law. Do you have any thoughts or advice to pass along on this topic to our readers?
Retaliation Claims Under the False Claims Act: “But For” or “Mixed Motive” Causation Standard? How to Prove Illegal Retaliation For Reporting Fraud on Government Contracts.
This past term, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar held that retaliation claims under Title VII are required to be decided by what is known as the “But For” causation standard. So, if an employee reports illegal discrimination or harassment based on race, sex, or other Title VII protected conduct and suffers retaliation, the Supreme Court held that the employee must show that “but for” engaging in protected activity (reporting the illegal conduct), the employee would not have suffered the adverse action (such as termination).
Kathy: Every year brings new legislation that impacts American employers and employees. Are there any game-changing laws that have been passed or that are on the horizon for 2013?
If you own and drive a motor vehicle on the roads in the State of Maryland, you probably know that the law requires you to carry insurance on the vehicle. But do you know how much and what kinds of coverage you are required to carry? The State of Maryland requires vehicle owners to carry the following coverage:
2013 ushered in many changes in the New Year, among them the legalizing of same-sex marriages in Maryland. Now, legally married same-sex couples in Maryland will receive the same benefits (and headaches) as their friends in heterosexual marriages, under the new Rev. Rule 2013-17.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Vance v. Ball State University changed the landscape for employees claiming discrimination under Title VII, including sexual harassment. In Vance, the Court limited the definition of a “supervisor” to being a person who can “take tangible employment actions” against the employee, meaning a “significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”
Maryland High Court rules that, while generally the jury is not entitled to be told that the defendant physician is not board certified, there are instances in which that evidence may be admissible.
In the recent case of Little v. Schneider (August 22, 2013), the Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously reinstated a $2.874 million verdict issued for a plaintiff by a Harford County, MD jury. The jury found that Dr. Schneider (acting as a specialist in vascular surgery) negligently used the wrong size graft in attempting to perform an arterial bypass. This allegedly caused massive bleeding, leaving Ms. Little permanently paralyzed.
This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.