Maryland State Police Racial Discrimination Class ActionCase - Learn More.
Maryland Recognizes Constitutional Right to Counsel at Initial Appearance Hearings
Anyone who has ever watched an episode of “Law & Order” can tell you that as a criminal defendant, you have the right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you by the state.
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?
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.[1] 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).[2]
(AP Photo/Ben Margot)
On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in Bland v. Roberts that clicking the “Like” button on Facebook®[1] qualifies as constitutionally protected speech.[2] This ruling extended First Amendment protection to the “Like” button.
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[1]:
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.[1] 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.”[2]
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.