Last year, Chief Justice John Roberts, in ruling with the majority that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, wrote “Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare.” Even if true, this statement does not speak to the prevalence of subtly discriminatory actions, often based on hidden, deep-se
Joseph Greenwald & Laake, PA Blog - Labor & Employment
Can an employer be liable for racist and sexist comments by a client or business partner—someone who does not even work for the employer—toward one of its employees?
Under a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is “yes.” In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., a decision issued on April 29, 2014, the Fourth Circuit recognized that an employer can be liable for harassment perpetrated by a third-party against one of its employees.
The President’s Executive Order on Non-Retaliation for Disclosure of Compensation Information: How it will affect federal contractors and their employees
On April 8, 2014, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order prohibiting federal government contractors from retaliating against employees for disclosing their own or other employees’ salary information. This post will explore the implications of this new Executive Order for federal contractors and their employees.
"Death of the fraudster" by Georg Auer Hohensalzburg
Are you a Marylander?
Do you want your hard earned tax money going to companies who are defrauding the Maryland state government?
Reasons to Read your Employee Handbook: "What do you mean I’m fired because I didn’t show up to work? I was in the hospital!"
It’s your first day on a new job. You are shown to a desk or conference table and the office manager places a large stack of papers in front of you. Tax forms, personal information forms, and the Employee Handbook. The Handbook can be small or large, and most of the time no one reads it. Nearly all of the time, however, a new employee will sign a piece of paper saying that he or she has read the handbook and understands all that is contained in the handbook. After this point, few employees ever think about what is actually written in the handbook until something bad happens. And sometimes not until it’s too late.
While in law school, I was often asked what area of law I was interested in practicing. Inevitably someone would ask me if I was interested in becoming a family law attorney. My almost instantaneous response was, “Oh no! Too much drama!” Instead, I chose to practice employment law – an area that I naively believed would have fewer emotions involved than Family law.
On October 15, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a False Claims Act ("FCA") judgment allowing the case to continue against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals ("Bayer"), based on the relator’s allegations that the company fraudulently induced the Department of Defense ("DoD") to enter contracts under which a drug known as Baycol was purchased for the use of armed service men and women.
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS SPOTLIGHT: High Court to Consider Whether an Employment Contract can Establish a Right to Lifetime Employment.
Can an employment contract establish a right to employment for life? The Maryland Court of Appeals will take up this question in the case of Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam.
Under Maryland law, the majority of employees are “at will” employees, meaning they can be terminated at any time and for any reason—other than discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, religion, another legally-protected class, or for a reason that violates Maryland public policy (a very narrow exception)—or no reason at all.
As a general rule, the states (including Maryland) and the federal government recognize two general categories of working relationships: employer- employee relationships, and independent contractor relationships. While the majority of persons are employees (and the law presumes as much), employers often miscategorize workers as independent contractors.
What was thought by many practitioners and many in the news media to be one of the most significantly restrictive Supreme Court decisions on class actions in recent memory, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, may not be so formidable for plaintiffs seeking redress through the class action process.