At Whiteford, our experience in labor and employment law allows us to help clients create a practical platform on which to base labor and employee relations decisions.
Labor & Employment Litigation
Every company is different. We look at corporate culture, history and character to understand the unique relationship between management and employees. Using this understanding, we provide labor and employment law advice and counsel tailored to achieve personnel objectives and avoid unnecessary litigation.
Should litigation arise, our labor and employment attorneys combine their experience in the intricacies of labor law, employment law, and litigation to give you the benefit of in-depth legal knowledge and proven courtroom technique.
Labor & Employment Law Experience
Our attorneys bring broad-based experience to the practice of labor and employment law. Our team includes attorneys formerly with the U.S. Department of Labor, along with those whose careers have been devoted to representing and counseling management in labor relations issues.
Our labor and employment law clients represent virtually every type of business and industry, ranging in size from Fortune 500 companies with thousands of employees in various locations, to small, closely held businesses and not-for-profits. We have also represented many state and local governmental entities in Maryland over the years in litigation, arbitration, contract negotiations, and advice and counsel on employment decisions.
Our experience includes union avoidance, union decertification, election campaigns, collective bargaining negotiations, grievance arbitration, employee handbooks and work rules, affirmative action, wage and hour disputes, occupational safety and health matters, advice and counsel on drafting effective personnel policies and procedures and handling employment discrimination cases. We spend considerable time training our clients and their supervisors on a host of employment related issues ranging from how to properly interview and hire the best applicants, provide appropriate benefits and compensation, manage and where necessary discipline their employees, provide a safe workplace free from harassment or other improper conduct, and how supervisors can more effectively manage their employees.
Our labor and employment law section conducts litigation of representation matters and unfair labor practice charges (offensive and defensive) before the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Courts of Appeal. We also litigate employment related cases involving claims of discrimination, wrongful discharge, health and safety, whistleblowers and other claims brought by employees against employers in state and federal courts, state and federal administrative agencies and Boards throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. We are admitted to practice in Maryland, D.C., Virginia and New York. Members of this legal section also have extensive experience in immigration matters as it relates to employment and labor laws.
Immigration policy, in one form or another, touches virtually every business in the United States. All employers are subject to the requirements of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which established the I-9 verification process, and many employers rely on immigrant workers, be they students on Optional Practical Training, H-1B professional workers, asylees and refugees, employees in Temporary Protected Status (TPS), trainees, or even highly educated and skilled workers, who provide critical know-how and expertise to drive their business.
As the advancements in medicine grow, so too do the number of clinical trials. Clinical trials for serious medical conditions are nothing new. Recently, the U.S. Department of Labor analyzed whether the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) covers employees taking time off work to participate in a clinical trial for their own serious health condition. On November 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued an Opinion Letter concluding that based on the facts presented, the FMLA applied to the leave sought by the employee to participate in clinical trials for an employee’s treatment of a serious health condition.
New York City Councilman Shaun Abreu, a cat owner, has introduced a groundbreaking bill — Introduction 1089 — that could make New York City the first jurisdiction in the nation to offer paid sick leave for pet care.
In 2022, Maryland’s General Assembly passed legislation creating a program of paid family leave for Maryland employees, under which employees who need to miss work for a qualifying reason will be able to submit a claim for benefits and recoup a portion of the wages they would have otherwise earned. Since the paid family leave statute was first passed, its implementation has been delayed by the General Assembly twice. Currently, payroll tax contributions to fund the program are scheduled to begin on July 1, 2025, with benefits becoming available to Maryland employees on July 1, 2026.
On November 15, 2024, the Eastern District of Texas invalidated the newly established overtime pay regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in 2024. These regulations incrementally increased the minimum salary threshold for workers to qualify as exempt from $35,568 to $58,656 annually, implemented in two phases, and also implemented an “escalator” provision that would increase the minimum salary level every three years.
On November 13, 2024, in a landmark decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that “captive audience” meetings –? where an employer requires workers to attend a meeting in which the employer expresses its opinion about unionization –? are unlawful. This ruling, stemming from a case involving Amazon.com, marks a significant shift in labor law, overturning more than 75 years of established precedent. This ruling will apply prospectively.
The reelection of Donald Trump is expected to bring about significant changes in federal enforcement of employment-related policies. These changes will likely reverse many of the pro-employee initiatives introduced during the Biden administration, as well as significantly impact enforcement priorities. Employers should be prepared for a shift towards more pro-employer policies and adjustments in the regulatory landscape.
As we reported in our September 26, 2024 article, effective October 1, 2024, employers with Maryland employees have new wage posting and pay statement notice obligations.
With the October 2024 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court just underway, employers should take note of several employment related cases on this Term’s docket that may significantly alter certain aspects of current employment law. This post highlights three such cases.
Election Day is just around the corner on November 5, 2024, although many states permit early voting. In fact, according to CNN, more than 18 million Americans have already voted.
Employers who require their employees to stay with them for a certain period of time after receiving company-paid training, education, or other benefits may face legal challenges from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). On October 7, 2024, the NLRB's General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued GC Memorandum 25-01 (the Memo) announcing her intention to prosecute employers who use these "stay or pay" agreements, which she views as similar to unlawful noncompete agreements that restrict employees' mobility and rights.
With Election Day quickly approaching and voting already underway in many states, employers should refresh their understanding of best practices for navigating political speech in the workplace.
On October 1, 2024, U.S. Dockworkers at America’s largest ports along the East and Gulf coasts went on strike. The International Longshoremen’s Association union, representing approximately 45,000 port workers, initiated the strike following breakdowns in negotiations about pay increases and automation projects.
During this year’s legislative session, the Maryland General Assembly passed new laws requiring employers to disclose certain wage information when posting job openings, as well as requirements to provide existing employees with certain information in pay statements issued with their paychecks. Each of these laws will take effect on October 1, 2024.
On August 28, 2024, New York State’s Freelance Isn’t Free Law (“FIFL”) took effect, extending protections to freelance workers statewide. This sweeping law is codified in a new Article 44-A to New York State’s General Business Law, ensuring clear expectations for both independent contractors and the organizations that engage them throughout New York State.
Employers that require arbitration agreements as part of an online application process must proceed with caution. In Marshall v. Georgetown Mem’l Hospital, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to compel arbitration of an applicant’s discriminatory failure to hire claim when the agreement to arbitrate was hidden in the employer’s online application materials.
Recent surveys indicate the widespread use of generative AI (artificial intelligence) and other artificial intelligence tools by employees in the workplace. This is hardly surprising, given the astonishing level of efficiencies that AI tools offer for content generation, predictions, recommendations, and a seemingly endless number of other outcomes.
Many employers may be unaware of the ability to establish Educational Assistance Programs that allow their employees to repay educational loans with pretax dollars. In March 2020, the IRS established the option for employers to include, in a qualifying Educational Assistance Program (see IRS Code Section 127), the ability of employees to pay back their college loans, including principal and interest, with pretax dollars.
In two separate rulings this week, federal agencies were stopped from enforcing new rulemaking that would significantly remake key areas of employment and non-discrimination law.
Few issues are more sensitive for employers than accommodating employees’ religious practices and observances. In recent years, Muslim employees and their employers have struggled with how to handle the religious requirement to perform obligatory prayers while at work. Few issues are more sensitive for employers than accommodating employees’ religious practices and observances. In recent years, Muslim employees and their employers have struggled with how to handle the religious requirement to perform obligatory prayers while at work.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled, in Okonowsky v. Garland, No. 23-55404, that an employer may be held liable for a Title VII hostile work environment claim based on harassing content posted on an employee’s personal social media account outside the workplace.
On July 29, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Bailey v. San Francisco Dist. Attorney Office, Cal., No. S265223, and held that the employee’s claims of racial harassment should proceed to jury trial and the trial court's summary judgment decision for the employer was in error.
Most employers are familiar with their obligation to comply with various federal and state employment laws when it comes to management and compensation of their own employees. One often overlooked risk for employers stems from the doctrine of “joint employment,” under which courts and agencies have held that – in certain factual circumstances – a company can be held liable for the employment violations of another business.
On July 2, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released a proposed rule aimed at mitigating worker illnesses from extreme heat in indoor and outdoor work settings. This proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention standard – publicized through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – arrives at a critical juncture due to the alarming rise in temperatures in the U.S. and globally.
On July 3, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Ryan, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, issued a preliminary injunction and ruled it was a substantial probability that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lacks authority to issue its April 23, 2024, Final Rule generally nullifying all non-compete provisions, which becomes effective September 4, 2024. The injunction is only a temporary halt, and the Ryan court promised a full decision before August 30, 2024, just a few days before the Rule’s September 4 effective date.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a final rule modifying the standard for determining whether employees qualify for several key exemptions to the overtime pay requirements set by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decisions in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219 (June 28, 2024), two cases involving fishing vessel operators challenging federal regulations regarding fishery management in federal waters. Although these cases are not workplace-related, the decision is expected to significantly impact employers and the workplace given the expanse of federal regulations governing the workplace, and the regularity with which those regulations are challenged in litigation. The list of potentially impacted agencies includes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Labor (DOL), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). These agencies, which are seen by many as having too much power, have potentially had the wind taken out of their proverbial sails.
Employers are looking to save time and money and are turning to Artificial Intelligence (AI) in order to make employment practices more efficient. In Spring 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued guidance to help employers navigate the use of AI. The takeaway for employers is that eliminating humans from critical employment processes could result in a violation of federal employment laws. This article discusses ways to avoid federal wage and hour claims when using AI.
In a unanimous decision concerning the applicable standard for an injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Supreme Court last week rejected a “reasonable cause” standard pushed by the National Labor Relations Board, which is charged with enforcing the Act, in favor of the stricter traditional four-part test for an injunction, ordinarily applied by the courts.
On or before July 1, 2024, all employers in New York City must provide current employees with a “Workers’ Bill of Rights” and post a multi-lingual “Your Rights at Work” poster that contains a QR code linking to the Workers’ Bill of Rights on NYC’s website, conspicuously in an area accessible and visible to all employees.
On May 23, 2024, the NCAA and the Power 5 conferences announced a $2.8 billion settlement that was reached in several antitrust class action lawsuits concerning payment for college athletes. The settlement marked a watershed moment, effectively sounding the death knell of “amateurism,” the longstanding argument by the NCAA for why college athletes should not be paid in Division I college sports.
Every July 1, after the Virginia Legislature has carefully debated thousands of bills, those bills that survive the scrutiny of both chambers and the Governor go into effect. As this process plays out, employers need to be vigilant of any changes that may impact their business. This year, given the divide between the legislature and the Governor, the changes to the labor and employment landscape are minimal.
In April, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed a sweeping ban on noncompete and conflict of interest provisions for certain veterinary and healthcare professionals. For veterinary professionals, the law takes effect this weekend, on June 1, 2024. The ban for healthcare professionals becomes effective next year, on July 1, 2025.
Previous installments of the Employment Law Update have discussed the status of Maryland’s paid family leave program, that will establish a process under which employees, who need to miss work for qualifying reasons, can submit claims to the state government for reimbursement of compensation lost because of their absences. The timetable for implementation of the program – originally created in 2022 – was extended last year under a bill passed by the General Assembly during its 2023 legislative session.
Maryland’s Governor signed The Wage Rate Transparency Act (the Act) into law, a step that will greatly expand existing requirements under Maryland law that currently requires employers to disclose just the wage range for a position and only upon the applicant’s request.
On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final version of the Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment (the Guidance), to include developments “answering the call” of the #MeToo movement, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (holding Title VII protections include sexual orientation and gender identity) and the realities of digital technology, social media, and harassment and the remote workplace.
On Tuesday April 23, 2024, the Department of Labor issued a long expected Final Rule that substantially raises the salary threshold for salaried exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA mandates the payment of overtime pay to non-exempt employees who work more than 40 hours in any given work week. There are, however, exemptions for employees who meet certain defined job requirements, such as bona fide executive, administrative and professional employees, provided these employees are also compensated on a “salary basis.”
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Final Rule that bans most existing non-compete agreements once the Rule becomes effective, which currently is estimated to be September 10, 2024.
On April 15, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published its Final Rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”). The primary impact of the new law is that under the PWFA, employers of 15 employees or more are required to make affirmative efforts to accommodate a pregnant employee, not merely agree not to discriminate. The PWFA became law on June 27, 2023, but the requirements are not expected to take effect until June 2024 following the implementation of the Finale Rule.
In a joint statement issued on April 4, 2024, five federal agencies, including the Department of Labor, announced they will apply their enforcement authorities to the use of automated systems, including artificial intelligence (AI). As the agencies put it, “Although many of these tools offer the promise of advancement, their use also has the potential to perpetuate unlawful bias, automate unlawful discrimination, and produce other harmful outcomes.”
On March 29, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a final Rule clarifying the rights of employees to have a representative attend inspections performed by OSHA compliance officers. This Rule is effective May 31, 2024.
As California struggles with a new $20.00 per hour minimum wage for fast food workers, Virginia Governor, Glenn Youngkin, recently vetoed a legislative bill (H.B. 157) that would have raised the hourly minimum wage in Virginia from $12 to $15 by 2026.
As covered in previous installments of the Employment Law Update, Maryland has joined a growing list of states in adopting a paid family leave program. Unlike traditional paid time off that is provided directly by an employer, the paid family leave program will be administered by the state government and will provide a system under which employees can receive reimbursement when they are absent from work for certain qualifying reasons.
The Maryland Department of Labor’s Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) has released a detailed FAQ document addressing 59 questions surrounding the new paid family and medical leave system that is (now) slated to launch in 2026. As a refresher, FAMLI will permit workers to take time off from work to care for themselves or a covered family member and be paid up to $1,000 weekly for up to 12 weeks.
New York employers must now comply with a new privacy law in effect. Specifically, employers are prohibited from obtaining certain information and/or access to an applicant or employee’s personal electronic accounts.
On December 26, 2023, the NLRB put into effect sweeping new rules providing unions with a rocket-speed advantage in petitioning for a representation election. The new rules once again collapse the time between the filing of a representation petition for an election (an employee vote whether employees want to be union-represented) and the date an election is conducted.
In October 2023, the NLRB finalized its Joint Employer Rule (the Rule), which was slated to become effective February 26, 2024. The Rule would expand when franchisors, staffing company users and other placement firms with business connections to another employer’s direct employees are considered joint employers.
On February 14, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division Administrator, Jessica Looman, testified before the House and confirmed the DOL’s intention to release its new overtime rule (the Rule) in April 2024, despite Republican representatives urging the DOL to withdraw a proposed overtime rule.
On February 5, 2024, the NLRB ruled that Dartmouth University’s Men’s Basketball team players are employees of the school, within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, clearing the way for an election that may result in the first-ever certified labor union for NCAA athletes.
On February 2, 2024, the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) issued a Final Rule relating to the FY2025 H-1B visa lottery program, set to open for registration next month. The new rule implements a “beneficiary centric” system, that will ensure that each unique beneficiary will be entered into the system only once, regardless of how many employers may submit a registration on the beneficiary’s behalf.
Over the past decade, and especially recently, more and more state legislatures have passed paid leave laws providing for tax-funded paid medical and/or family leave programs. These new programs provide leave for employees above and beyond the normal “PTO,” “Vacation,” or “Sick” leave employers generally afford their employees.
Employment laws seem to be enacted in waves. One year its laws regulating how employers can and cannot react to or control an employee’s use of social media. Then, there is a wave of laws mandating paid sick leave. Of course, there is the evolving wave of laws about facial recognition and data privacy.
On January 10, 2024, the Department of Labor (DOL) published its final Rule on classifying workers as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Rule will take effect on March 11, 2024.
On December 22, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul gave a holiday gift to New York’s business community when she vetoed New York State Senate bill (S.3100A)—New York’s non-compete bill—that would have prohibited employers in New York from using noncompete agreements and certain other restrictive covenants with employees and other “covered individuals,” amending New York’s Labor Law. The business community lobbied for the Governor to veto or narrow the bill, fearing that the non-compete bill, in the form passed by the New York legislature, would damage New York’s economy, threatening innovation and causing businesses to flee New York for more employer-friendly states.
Non-compete agreements have been the subject of much discussion and scrutiny across the country. While some states and federal agencies push for prohibition of these types of restrictive covenants altogether, Maryland and New York continue their trends of narrowing the class of workers who may be lawfully subjected to a non-compete. Non-Compete Agreements have been the subject of much discussion and scrutiny across the country. While some states and federal agencies push for prohibition of these types of restrictive covenants altogether, Maryland and New York continue their trends of narrowing the class of workers who may be lawfully subjected to a non-compete.
Last week, the Department of Labor announced it had recovered $11.4 million in back wages and liquidated damages for more than 1,000 employees of a popular Mexican Restaurant chain, Plaza Azteca. Following an investigation that began in 2019, the Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against the owner of several Plaza Azteca locations alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
As of November 22, 2023, employers of New York City employees and New York City places of public accommodation and housing providers are prohibited from discriminating based on an individual’s height or weight, with limited exceptions, following an amendment to New York City’s Human Rights Law.
We’ve seen it happen: an acrimonious termination results in a terminated employee refusing to return a company-issued laptop computer or other electronic device, claiming it contains personal information. In a recent Maryland criminal law case, State v. McConnell (July 17, 2023), the Maryland Supreme Court gave strong ear to an employee’s claim of privacy entitlement to information stored on a provided laptop, stating that computers “can reveal the sum of an individual’s private life.”
On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued its 144-page proposed Enforcement Guidance on preventing workplace harassment under the anti-discrimination laws that the EEOC enforces (“Guidance”). The stated purpose of the Guidance is to clarify for the public what the EEOC maintains are legal requirements for preventing unlawful harassment in the workplace. What is concerning, among other things, is the very broad approach to illegal workplace harassment that the EEOC sets forth. While any EEOC Guidance does not have the force of law, it provides insight into the EEOC’s focus and how it will interpret and administer the laws it is charged with enforcing.
Last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor (DOL) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to improve their enforcement of federal employment laws. Prior to this MOU, each agency operated in a fairly siloed manner and without much collaboration.
In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. _ _ _ (June 29, 2023) (SFFA), the United States Supreme Court struck down the legality of affirmative action programs within the university setting, holding that universities may not use race by itself as a “plus factor” in college admissions decisions. Without delving too deeply into the legal nuances of the 237-page decision, the Court’s majority opinion noted the following important points: (1) because of the “zero sum” nature of university admissions, it is not possible for race to be a “plus factor” for some applicants without functioning as a detriment for others; and (2) using race as a plus factor inevitably invokes impermissible race stereotyping. It took only moments before the ripples of this decision were felt across both the public and private sector.
As of July 1st, Maryland law now permits the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana. Unlike some other jurisdictions that have decriminalized marijuana possession, Maryland’s new statute does not directly address the law’s consequences for employers and employees. In the absence of statutory language clarifying the law’s impact on the workplace, many Maryland employers have been left uncertain as to their ability to prohibit, or test for, marijuana use among their employees.
A growing number of federal appeals courts are ruling that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") requires employers to provide employees on military leave with the “same rights and benefits” as are provided to similarly situated employees on non-military leave.
This past June, the Supreme Court issued a decision “clarifying” the test applied to determine when an employer would be justified in refusing a requested religious accommodation. Under Title VII, an employer may not discriminate against an employee or applicant on account of their religion. In regulations issued not long thereafter, the EEOC added its interpretation that this non-discrimination provision also required an employer to “make reasonable accommodations to the religious needs of employees” whenever those accommodations would not work an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” This interpretation was then adopted by Congress when it amended the statute in 1972. The term “religion” was also further defined to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.”
On June 27, 2023, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) became law, placing heightened obligations upon employers to accommodate pregnant employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) immediately began accepting charges under the PWFA for alleged violations occurring on or after June 27, 2023.
On August 30, 2023, the US Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking increasing the requirements for claiming overtime exemptions for Executive, Administrative and Professional employees, commonly referred to as the “White Collar Overtime Exemptions.” Currently, a White Collar employee can only be overtime-exempt (that is, paid on a flat salary basis without overtime) if the employee performs certain functions requiring judgment and discretion, and is paid at least $684 per week, approximately $35,600 annualized.
In a decision issued on August 2, 2023, the NLRB overruled existing precedent regarding the lawfulness of employer work rules and policies as articulated in employee handbooks, in favor of a new test which places the burden on employers to justify presumptively unlawful policies by showing that the work rules or policies advance a legitimate and substantial business interest that cannot be achieved by a more narrowly tailored rule.
On July 21, 2023, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a new Form I-9 to be used in connection with the verification of employment eligibility. The new form is available for use effective as of August 1, 2023. Employers may continue to use the older version of the Form I-9 (Rev. 10/21/19) through Oct. 31, 2023. After that date, they must use the new form. Use of an older version of the form will subject employers to penalties under Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
On February 22nd, the Supreme Court ruled that an executive or managerial employee otherwise qualified to be overtime exempt, lost that exemption if paid on a daily rate basis.
As background, highly compensated employees, those identified as “Executive” or “Administrative” under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), can be overtime exempt if performing certain high level functions, and if paid on a “salaried basis.” At issue, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether an individual, otherwise entitled to exempt status, loses that status if paid on a daily pay basis – that is whether daily paid individuals are receiving a “salary.”
On January 5, 2023, The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) proposed a new rule that would ban essentially all non-compete agreements that employers impose on their workers. The notice of proposed rulemaking would deem any non-compete clauses with paid staff and independent contractors, as well as unpaid workers, to be an unfair method of competition that must be rescinded and that employers must tell current and former employees they've stopped enforcement.
On December 15, 2022, The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) handed down a finding of merit in Case 31-CA-290326 brought by the National College Players Association (“NCPA”) on behalf of men’s and women’s basketball and football players that charged the University of Southern California (“USC”), the PAC-12 Conference (“PAC-12”) and the National Collegiate Athletics Association (“NCAA”) with an unfair labor practice, alleging they had systematically misclassified players as “student-athlete” nonemployees instead of employees to prevent the athletes from realizing their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
U.S. trade and professional organizations periodically encounter inquiries from foreign nationals looking for support for a visa application for the United States. The individual is invariably asking for the organization to provide them with a “recommendation” or “opinion” letter to support their O-1 visa application. The inquiry usually raises multiple questions for the organization -- Are we required to provide the letter? What happens if we say yes (or no) to the request? Will the immigration service investigate us if we provide the letter? - and so on. In other cases, the organization is looking more for guidance on how to set limits on such “recommendations,” given that most of the individuals who come to them are not members of the organization.
Maryland’s mandated retirement plan is up and running. Virginia’s and Delaware’s plans are not far behind.
The State of Maryland now requires all private employers, with few exceptions, to provide a retirement savings vehicle for employees. The MarylandSaves program is now active and employers that have at least one W-2 employee can expect to receive notices alerting them to sign up or obtain an exemption.
Delaware is expected to roll out its mandated retirement program in 2025 and Virginia is expected to do so in 2023.
The Time to Care Act of 2022 specifies that the Maryland Department of Labor must adopt regulations to implement the bill by June 1, 2023, which includes establishing a paid leave fund that collects contributions from employers and employees based on wages.
The Offer of Employment letter serves many purposes. The letter must enhance the applicant’s interest in the opportunity and protect the employer against claims that it misrepresented the employment opportunity.
During the course of the pandemic, IT departments were overwhelmed by the pressing need to provide employees with remote access in a very short time. That need may have, in some cases, overridden established processes and procedures around data security.
The rise of remote work comes with potential liability, requiring employers to examine the scope of their existing insurance coverage and to explore additional options for coverage. Remote working generally implicates three forms of business and employer-liability insurance: (1) worker’s compensation; (2) cyber-insurance; and (3) commercial property insurance.
Although many employees have returned to working on location again, factors indicate that the labor market has changed to more permanently accommodate remote workers. With this shift comes state tax and other employment issues employers must now contend with. This article focuses on some of the state tax issues.
Overnight, literally millions of employees became remote workers with employers scrambling just to keep the doors open. There was no time to prepare guidelines describing the expectations and unique challenges of the new remote environment. But there is time now, and the well-advised employer should do so.
On January 25, 2022, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), announced they were formally withdrawing its emergency temporary standard requiring employers with more than 100 employees require their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
The Sixth Circuit lifted the stay on OSHA’s vaccine or test mandate for employers with 100 or more employees. The Fifth Circuit stayed the mandate pending a review of whether the coronavirus presented a “grave danger” necessitating such sweeping federal action a day after the rules were published. With the stay lifted, employers are left revisiting the requirements of the mandate.
Retirement plan sponsors that allow participant direction of investment (most 401(k) plans) have a fiduciary duty to select and monitor the investments in the plan’s line up solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries.
If your association or organization sponsors one or more retirement plans, you should be on the lookout for outreach from your recordkeepers or plan document providers. Please note that many times the outreach comes through the providers’ employer portal with a corresponding email to the contact of record. You should verify that the designated contact person is correct. Failure to adopt the amendments described below in a timely manner may result in assessment of penalties by the Internal Revenue Service or disqualification of the retirement plans.
Being a government contractor is hard; the rules are complex, and the penalties for non-compliance can be harsh. So, when the President of the United States tells the world that there will be a vaccine mandate for U.S. government contractors, contractors might have some questions.
Employers can no longer rely on their contracts, policies, or industry standards as grounds for seeking a private suit against employees under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA). The Supreme Court recently ruled that the CFAA did not regulate a person's authorized access to a computer for an improper purpose. The Court limited claims under the CFAA to a person who exceeds his/her authorized access.
Few issues are more sensitive for employers than accommodating employees’ religious practices and observances. In recent years, Muslim employees and their employers have struggled with how to handle the religious requirement to perform obligatory prayers while at work.
In the close geographic quarters of the District of Columbia, non-compete agreements were a common tool for employers seeking to protect their business from former employees going to work for competitors. Now, employees cannot be bound by such covenants not to compete, and are generally free to take up shop with the competitor across the street. This new law will inevitably change the landscape of DC employment practices.
As a chartered county, Montgomery County has the discretion to determine what actionable discrimination is under County law. As such, effective January 15, 2021, the County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland passed Bill 14-20 which updated the County’s Human Rights law to define harassment, including sexual harassment.
Every winter, Virginia’s General Assembly gathers in Richmond to pass new laws affecting Virginians and Virginia businesses. Three of the most recent and consequential changes affecting employers are changes to Virginia’s minimum wage, paid sick leave to certain employees, and prohibition on disciplining employees for medicinal use of cannabis oil.
In the coming months, association leaders will need to evaluate a range of legal questions and practical concerns as they consider establishing a COVID-19 vaccination policy for their workplace and events. Here are some of the key issues that any association should consider before implementing a vaccine policy.
As COVID-19 vaccines become available, employers will confront the question of whether to mandate such vaccinations for their workforce. This short video walks employers through the various questions they should consider in formulating a policy on vaccinations and some of the legal considerations when doing so.
An employee responds to a racially derogatory social media post with a thumbs up. A customer complains that a clerk’s BLM mask is offensive. A tech CEO blasts a political endorsement to the millions of employees of client companies. Each of these scenarios presents an additional challenge to an employer already navigating the difficulties imposed by a once in a generation health crisis, and an increasingly polarized political climate.
Around this time of any election year, we encounter employer inquiries as to whether employers have an obligation to provide employees with “voting time leave” and if so, whether that time must be paid.
On August 8, 2020, President Trump sent a memorandum (the “Memorandum”) to the Treasury Department (“Treasury”), ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to defer collection of the employee portion of Social Security withholding (and withholding for certain railroad workers under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act) from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020.
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020, the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board (“Board”) of the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry (“VDOLI”) met to discuss and adopt workplace safety regulations (16 VAC 25-220) proposed by VDOLI on June 12, 2020 in response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (“Virus”) that causes COVID-19. This meeting was the final meeting in a series of meetings held by the Board to discuss the originally-proposed regulations. During this time, multiple amendments to these regulations were proposed by Board members.
Effective July 1, 2020, the Virginia Values Act amends and drastically rewrites the Virginia Human Rights Act (“VHRA”), adding substantial teeth to the statute. Among its key provisions, the Virginia Values Act expands the definition of covered employers, expands the causes of action available to aggrieved employees, increases the classes of employees who are protected, and expands the remedies available to employees who sue. With the substantial changes, it is anticipated that employers will see a flood of new litigation under the VHRA.
Virginia employers who have or are considering non-compete agreements with low-wage earners should take note. Effective July 1, 2020, Virginia employers are prohibited by statute from entering into, enforcing, or threatening to enforce a covenant not to compete with any low-wage employee. See Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:8(B).
On March 10, 2020, Governor Ralph Northam signed into law an amendment to the Virginia Wage Payment Act (“WPA”) passed by the Virginia General Assembly, which will go into effect on July 1, 2020.
On Wednesday, June 24, 2020, the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board (“Board”) of the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry met to discuss the adoption of the proposed COVID-19 workplace safety regulations previously highlighted in our June 18 Client Alert below. The Board did not vote on the proposed regulations, but addressed several procedural matters moving the Board closer to approving new regulations in the near future. The Board anticipates holding another meeting the week of June 29, 2020 where it may vote on approving final regulations, although a meeting date has not been announced.
Right now, employees may be experiencing anxiety and feeling excluded as result of Stay-at-Home Orders issued in various states to address the coronavirus pandemic. These feelings may linger once those Orders are lifted and we resume a new normal in the workplace. As such, employers, including those in leadership and management positions, must be aware of these feelings and avoid actions that may further exclude employees. This includes, but is not limited to, recognizing the importance of pronouns in the workplace.
On May 4, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service and Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor jointly published guidance extending a number of employer deadlines for notices and claims under employer-provided retirement and welfare plans. Most relevant to many employers will be the extensions applicable to COBRA continuation of coverage requirements.
In light of the current state of affairs surrounding COVID-19, employers are facing challenges not typically encountered in their day-to-day roles. Our Whiteford professionals have addressed questions for our clients in hopes these answers will assist in easing how to deal with this particularly difficult, ever-changing situation.
On Friday, March 27th, the House of Representatives passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was previously passed by the Senate. The wide-ranging statute contains a host of provisions that will be importance to employers, including with respect to low-interest loan programs and other forms of financial relief.
On Monday, March 23, 2020, Governor Northam issued Executive Order 53 (“EO-53”) implementing a variety of state-wide “shutdown” measures intended to slow the spread of COVID-19. Governor Northam, through EO-53, ordered a number of private business to close from 11:59 p.m. on March 24, 2020 through 11:59 p.m. on April 23, 2020.
On March 18th, the U.S. Senate approved the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which was recently passed by the House of Representatives. The legislation now awaits signature by the President. Among a host of measures relating to health services and other forms of aid, the Act contains two new laws creating employee leave rights that will apply to a broad spectrum of employers. Under the terms of the new statute, these employee leave provisions will take effect within 15 days of the law being enacted. Below is brief overview of the key provisions of those two components of the Act.
Board members owe a duty to organization to act in good faith, with due care and loyalty to its interests. They likewise owe the organization confidentiality and must act to protect the organization from claims and liabilities where possible.
It is so easy to fall into the trap: an employee comes to a member of the Board of Directors with a complaint about some job concern and gets the director to “bite.” Out of an understandable, or even noble, desire to be a fixer, a director may assure the employee that he will address the concern, and take care of it. But is that a good judgment response?
On January 12, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its Final Rule clarifying that employers must exercise “direct control” over employees to be a joint employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Rule is good news for employers; it sets a higher standard for plaintiffs seeking additional defendants in a wage and hour claim. Employers who use staffing agencies, have franchise relationships, or use subcontractors will want to take special note.
Under the Universal Paid Leave Act (“UPLA”), beginning in July 2020, employees in the District of Columbia will have the option of taking three types of paid leave: up to eight weeks of parental paid leave taken within a year of giving birth, placing a child in adoption or foster care, or changing the custody of a child; up to six weeks of family paid leave to care for or provide companionship to a seriously ill family member; and up to two weeks of medical paid leave after the employee is diagnosed with or had an occurrence of a serious health condition.
Recently enacted amendments to Maryland’s anti-discrimination laws go into effect today, October 1, 2019, which will have a wide impact on Maryland employers and their ability to defend against sexual harassment claims.
On September 24, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor issued its final version of the much anticipated overtime exemption rule, raising the minimum salary threshold required to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) “white collar” exemptions to $35,568 per year, or $684 per week.
As of July 1, 2019, employers in Virginia must furnish to employees and former employees copies of all records retained by the employer in the following categories:
the employee’s dates of employment with the employer
the employee’s wages or salary during the employment
the employee’s job description and job title during employment
any injuries sustained by the employee during the course of the employment with the employer (Virginia Code §8.01-413.1(B)).
The recent news of athletic department recruitment scandals - accepting bribes to gain admissions using dedicated roster spots for non-athletes - and for the practice to so easily escape detection is diagnostic of a greater issue within the results-oriented world of collegiate athletics.[1] An environment conducive to ethical misconduct may exist where rules are stretched, improprieties are overlooked and whistleblowing only occurs at great personal risk, both for athletic department employees, as well as students. Inadequate oversight of unethical misconduct can result in severe consequences, such as the recent and tragic death of a University of Maryland athlete. In that case, an entire University Board was forced to functionally admit a major athletic program oversight. Schools and universities must take steps now to ensure that oversight of ethical misconduct, particularly in the athletic department, is being handled appropriately.
The issue of gender equality in sports is front and center. While not a new issue, recent lawsuits are challenging the practice of paying female athletes substantially less for similar work than male athletes.
In 2017, the history of gender inequity in sports was highlighted in the motion picture, Battle of the Sexes. The film depicted the epic, nationally televised, 1973 tennis match between female tennis star Billie Jean King and her male counterpart Bobby Riggs, portrayed as a male chauvinist. King was the first female tennis player to win over $100,000 in a year prior to this epic match. The tennis match between these players sent an important message that women deserved the same amount of prize money and respect as males. As set forth in this article, this message continues to resonate today in sports.
Peter D. Guattery presented a brief webinar on the topic of, "The Return of the Social Security No-Match Letter," where he addressed what it means and how it impacts your business.
It is an understandable tendency to want one-size-fits-all policies and employment handbook provisions in the workplace, but the virtual workplace modality creates a need to re-examine that tendency. After all, the conditions at play in the virtual workplace involve issues of control and accountability not present when all employees are easily observed and reachable by merely walking the halls.
You are an employer located in Columbia, Maryland, with a mobile workforce, which travels to client sites around the state and into the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania. One of your employees, who regularly works between sites in Montgomery County and the District needs to be out because his child’s school has been closed by order of the county government. You look to your policies and see that your employee has no more paid vacation leave available, and only one day of sick leave left. Since your policy limits the use of sick leave to only those categories of leave permitted under Maryland law, you tell the employee that he will need to take a day of unpaid leave, because he is not eligible for paid sick leave.
One of your valued employees comes to you with exciting news – her partner has been offered a big promotion, but it requires a move across country. She would love to continue working for your company and you would hate to have to replace her. So you both agree on a plan that allows her to continue to work remotely from her new state. Everyone is happy, until you learn about the unintended consequences of having a remote employee.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and many similar State civil rights laws, the liability for sexual harassment can vary greatly based on the nature of the claim. The Supreme Court companion cases of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) set out a standard holding an employer strictly liable for instances of sexual harassment by a supervisor, but left open a window, by way of an affirmative defense, where the employee suffered no tangible adverse employment action as a result.
In light of the #MeToo movement, companies that have held holiday parties in the past are foregoing hosting holiday parties to avoid the potential for liability. However, concerns about #MeToo should not dissuade companies from celebrating staff, the holidays, and end-of-the-year accomplishments. Instead, companies should be proactive in planning holiday parties, as well as in educating employees about appropriate behavior, before hosting such parties to minimize risks. Below are suggested considerations for companies that do not want to forego throwing a holiday bash.
In the opening days of the 2018 legislative session, Maryland’s General Assembly overrode Governor Larry Hogan’s veto of the paid sick leave bill passed in 2017. Use of the veto override procedure meant that the law would take effect only 30 days after it was enacted, meaning that the law will become effective on February 11, 2018. During the final days before the law’s effective date, the General Assembly considered a bill to delay its effective date to July 1st, but the legislation appears unlikely to pass in the House of Delegates. As a result, mandatory sick leave will shortly become a reality in Maryland.
Following nearly a year of speculation, the Maryland General Assembly has voted to override Governor Larry Hogan’s veto of the paid sick leave bill passed by the General Assembly near the close of last year’s legislative session. The Maryland Healthy Working Families Act (HB 1/SB230) will now take effect in thirty days absent further action by the General Assembly to provide additional time to prepare for its implementation, and will have significant implications for Maryland employers.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston attorneys authored the most recent issue of the Maryland State Bar Association’s Labor & Employment Section Newsletter. Peter Guattery coordinated the effort for the Fall 2017 issue (attached) and contributed an article, as did: Steve Bers, Jennifer Jackman, Kevin McCormick, Tiffany Releford, Jeff Seaman, and David Stevens.
Effective September 18, 2017, all employers must use Form I-9 with a Revision Date of 7/17/2017 for verification of employment authorization of all newly hired employees. The new form contains minor changes to language on the form, largely renumbers the list of acceptable documents and updates list C documents to include the most current version of a certification or report of birth abroad to the U.S. Department of State.
Many employers saw their ranks diminished on February 16 as a host of employees stayed away from work in support of the nationwide “A Day Without Immigrants” campaign.
Employers are likely to see that situation repeated as more protests are scheduled for the coming months. A walkout to support “A Day Without a Woman” is scheduled for March 8, and another “A Day Without Immigrants” is scheduled for May 1.
Clients are reminded that as of January 21, 2017, they must use the new Form I-9 for employment verification purposes. Failure to use the new form could result in a potential technical violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which became law in November 1986.
The new form contains a number of additional fields and a set of instructions which, at 15 pages, is more than double that of the prior form. In addition, USCIS has prepared a Smart Form, which may be accessed online, that should greatly aid in correct and thorough completion of the form.
A federal district court has permanently blocked a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulation that would have created new requirements for employers looking to keep unions out of their workplaces.
Maryland’s new Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, which takes effect on October 1, will prohibit employers from providing less than favorable employment opportunities to or discriminating against employees by paying different rates based on their sex or gender identity.
Effective December 1, 2016, the US Department of Labor regulations defining overtime-exemption eligibility requirements will change, with the impact upon employers being that fewer employees may be eligible for payment on a level salary basis for all hours worked – that is, employers may lose their overtime exemption. The new requirements will have a direct impact upon any current salaried employee being paid a salary of less than $913 per week.
According to the DOL, reportable persuader activities would include any action, conduct, or communication by a consultant on behalf of an employer that would directly or indirectly persuade workers with regard to their rights to organize and bargain collectively, regardless of whether the consultant has direct contact with the workers. Any lawyer who works on written materials to be distributed to employees would be considered a persuader even if there is no direct contact between the lawyer and the employees. As a result, the lawyer’s fees generated for those activities must be disclosed.
Just how the dismissal of the petition to unionize some Northwestern University football players will affect other representation issues before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is uncertain, but one issue the Board didn’t touch is whether scholarship football players should be considered employees.
The D.C. Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2014 (“the Act”) became effective March 3, 2015. Under the Act, D.C. employers are required to provide accommodations, when requested, to employees when they are needed due to pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions or breastfeeding.
The D.C. Wage Theft Prevention Amendment Act of 2014 (WTPAA) became effective February 26, 2015. Under the WTPAA, all D.C. employers must provide new hires with specific information about their employment. Further, effective May 27, 2015, D.C. employers must provide all existing employees with updated information about their employment. This new notice requirement applies to all D.C. employers regardless of size. Both new hires and existing employees must be given notice of the terms and conditions of their employment in the format set forth in the Notice of Hire- Employment Status and Acknowledgement of Wage Rate(s) (Notice of Hire). A copy of the Notice of Hire can be found at the D.C. Depart of Employment Services website, http://does.dc.gov.
In World Color Corp. v. NLRB (D.C. Circuit No. 14-1028), the Court addressed a petition by a graphic printing company for review of a decision by the NLRB that the company’s employee hat policy violated the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”). The employer’s policy prohibited the wearing of baseball caps other than company caps bearing the company logo. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that the policy violated the Act because it prohibited employees from wearing union caps that bore union insignia (and thereby violated the employees’ rights under the Act). However, the policy also permitted employees to accessorize “in good taste and in accordance with all safety rules.” The company argued that the NLRB erred in failing to consider the employees’ ability, under the “accessorizing” portion of the policy, to apply union insignia to their company caps, and that, because employees were permitted to accessorize with union insignia, the policy did not violate the Act.
Small employers with less than 100 employees may opt to install a “SIMPLE” IRA Plan or a Simplified Employee Pension Plan (SEP) as an alternative to a traditional qualified retirement plan such as a profit sharing plan or 401(k) plan. The benefits of the arrangements are meaningful – there is no required discrimination testing, no annual reporting, and no lengthy plan document required to be adopted, but, by establishing such a plan, a small employer can provide a meaningful retirement benefit to employees and a business owner can shelter income from current taxes.
In Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 243 (2013), the Supreme Court narrowed the EEOC’s definition of a supervisor, which included individuals with broad day-to-day supervisory authority, to find that an employer can be held vicariously liable for the discriminatory acts of a supervisor, if the supervisor has the power to take tangible employment actions against the employee. In other words, the definition of supervisor was limited to those individual with the ability to hire, fire, transfer, or affect the status of the employee. The Maryland General Assembly has introduced House Bill 42, the “Fair Employment Preservation Act of 2015,” to codify existing state law and apply the broader definition of supervisor adopted by Maryland state and federal courts prior to the Vance ruling.
The advent of social media has changed the landscape of how people communicate, share and connect with others online, through applications such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Snapchat, among others. As social media has become the conduit by which people share thoughts, comments and videos online, employers have begun using the same tools to recruit potential hires, convey their brands, retain employees and increase visibility in the marketplace.
Montgomery County and the District of Columbia have enacted versions of what are commonly referred to as "Ban the Box" laws - laws that limit an employer's ability to inquire about a job applicant's criminal history.
The purpose of this note is to summarize the significant differences between the criminal background check bill introduced in the Montgomery County Council in July (“Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards”) and the version of that bill that was passed into law by the Council on October 28, 2014. We also provide you with a comparison of the Montgomery County law to the District of Columbia’s corresponding criminal history law (“Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment Act of 2014”).
You are contemplating hiring an “intern” for your organization. You have budget constraints, but you could sure use the extra help. What should you do? Should the intern be classified as an unpaid volunteer or paid employee? Recently, the US Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued guidelines on how to structure an internship program in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Recent memoranda issued by the General Counsel of the NLRB’s Operations Management Division make it clear that OSHA, Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, and the NLRB Regional Offices are going to be taking a more coordinated, less compartmentalized approach to addressing workplace complaints. The memoranda also encourage personnel from those agencies to advise claimants about possible claims under other labor laws.
Employers in Baltimore will face new restrictions in conducting criminal background checks now that the city council has passed a tough new “ban the box” law.
Bill 13-0301, titled “Ban the Box – Fair Criminal Records Screening Practices,” passed the Baltimore City Council on April 28 and was expected to gain Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s signature. It is to go into effect 90 days after adoption.
On January 28, a group of football players at Northwestern University filed a union election petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Chicago. On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, the Board ruled that certain student athletes are employees entitled to a union election. This is the first time college athletes have sought to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and this ruling could change college athletics forever.
The U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently dealt with a question that has rarely been addressed in sexual harassment/ hostile work environment cases: under what circumstances is an employer liable for the sexual harassment of an employee by one of that employee’s subordinates?
Maryland’s Reasonable Accommodations for Pregnant Workers Act goes into effect October 1, meaning Maryland employers with 15 or more employees must provide reasonable accommodations to employees who experience a disability because of a pregnancy.
Basically, the new law requires employers to treat pregnancies in much the same way disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are handled. Accommodations are required unless they would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
The impending need for compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 has been a source of great concern for employers. Recently, the U.S. government announced a one-year delay in the implementation of one of the statute’s central provisions, the employer mandate. Despite that extension, the law still requires that employers take action this year in order to remain compliant. This article examines one of the critical provisions of the law which remains in place notwithstanding the delay of the employer mandate.
During the most recent legislative session, the Maryland General Assembly enacted legislation that creates an entirely new procedure by which employees who believe they are due unpaid wages can seek to obtain a lien against their employer for the wage amount. Most significantly, the procedure allows for the entry of a lien prior to a full adjudication in which the employee is obligated to demonstrate the merits of the wage claim. This article examines the new statute, which takes effect October 1, 2013.
For the past several years, the political stalemate in Washington, D.C. has resulted in the National Labor Relations Board operating with fewer than its standard complement of five members. Earlier this month, an agreement between Senate Republicans and the Obama administration resulted in the confirmation of new NLRB members, breaking an impasse that has resulted in numerous legal challenges to decisions made while the NLRB was operating with members who had not been confirmed by the Senate. This article examines the backgrounds of the new Board members, and offers insights as to what the new membership composition will mean for employers in the coming years.
In a long-awaited decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has struck down the National Labor Relations Board’s mandate that all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act post a notice of employee rights under the law. This article examines the controversy surrounding the Board’s unprecedented posting requirement and the impact of the D.C. Circuit’s decision.
On March 8, 2013, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) published a revised Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9, which contains some slight modifications to the familiar form used by employers when verifying the eligibility of newly hired employees to work in the United States. While employers were given a sixty-day grace period to begin using the revised form, as of May 7, 2013, the failure to use the revised form will subject an employer to statutory penalties. This article examines the revisions made to Form I-9.
The Maryland legislative session typically includes the introduction of a number of bills affecting the relationship between employers and their employees. This article notes several such bills that were considered – but failed to pass – in the most recent session and examines a newly enacted law creating additional obligations for employers with pregnant employees.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is continuing efforts to broaden its impact on the workforce with the launch of a webpage aimed at communicating to workers how they can use the law in disputes with their employers.
In the latest development of the ongoing drama surrounding the National Labor Relations Board’s mandate that all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act must post a notice of employee rights under the law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has issued an order staying implementation of the posting requirement, which had been set to take effect on April 30, 2012. This article examines the controversy surrounding the posting requirement and the impact of the D.C. Circuit’s decision.
In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an employee’s internal complaint to company management about possible wage-hour violations may be protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s anti-retaliation provisions. The Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the trial court, which had dismissed the case based on its finding that the informal complaints were not protected under the FLSA. This article examines the facts of this important case, as well as the significant implications for employers.
During the recently completed legislative session, the Maryland General Assembly became the first state legislature in the country to pass legislation prohibiting employers from requesting access to employees’ and job applicants’ personal computer accounts, most notably Facebook and other social media accounts. This article examines the effects the law will have on how Maryland employers handle hiring decisions and internal investigations.
Worker classification has become a major concern for employers, as governmental agencies have stepped up their efforts to investigate allegations that individuals who are properly considered employees have been misclassified as independent contractors. Recently, the IRS announced a program under which employers may be eligible to reclassify workers as employees at a reduced cost and without the threat of major IRS penalties. This article examines the potential benefits – and pitfalls – associated with the new program and provides an overview of the worker misclassification conundrum.
One particularly vexing issue that employers are often faced with is the confluence of FMLA and ADA concerns that arise when an employee experiencing a serious health condition – which may also qualify as a disability for purposes of the ADA – is approaching the end of his or her FMLA leave allotment. While the employer’s obligations under the FMLA can be determined by reference to concrete obligations imposed by that statute, the obligations imposed by the ADA frequently require a case-by-case determination of whether the accommodation needed by an employee is reasonable under the circumstances. The interplay between these statutes frequently causes significant headaches for employers. This issue was recently taken up by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. This article examines the case, which has significant lessons for employers attempting to maintain compliance with these statutes.
On December 21, the NLRB adopted a final rule implementing certain changes to the procedures governing union elections. While the NLRB has chosen to forego implementation of some of the more controversial proposed rules that had previously been announced, the changes included in the final rule will nevertheless have significant consequences for employers who may be targeted for organizing. This article examines the Board’s final rule and its potential impact for employers.
Last August, the National Labor Relations Board issued a regulation requiring that all employers subject to the National Labor Relations Act post a notice advising employees of their right to form unions and engage in other activities protected by the Act. The effective date of the posting requirement was originally set for November 2011, but was later pushed back to January 31, 2012. The NLRB has now further delayed the implementation date to April 30.
Special from BLR's Advanced Employment Issues Symposium: In a previous article, attorney Kevin McCormick briefed us on new union tactics and the new NLRB aggressiveness; today, his 7 steps to get ready for union organizers plus an introduction to a unique guide just for small, or even one-person, HR departments.
Special from BLR's Advanced Employment Issues Symposium: Unions are desperate, says attorney Kevin McCormick, because their numbers are down and many of the things they once promised workers (like safer workplaces) are now mandated by government agencies. The result? They're getting aggressive in new ways.
In the Fall 2011 issue of the Labor & Employment Newsletter, we reported on a rule adopted by the National Labor Relations Board that will require employers to post a written notice of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The rule was scheduled to take effect November 14, 2011. This Alert is to inform you that the NLRB has now postponed the implementation date of the posting requirement to January 31, 2012.
Maryland courts have long recognized a common law right of action for employees who allege that they were terminated in violation of a public policy. While the parameters of this cause of action defy easy explanation, the Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., sheds some light on just what constitutes the sort of public policy that will support a wrongful discharge claim. This article takes a closer look at the wrongful discharge tort and the Court of Appeals’ most recent attempt to clarify its reach.
On August 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule that will require covered employers to post and disseminate a notice to employees summarizing the rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act. This article addresses the immediate issues raised by the new requirement, as well as the broader concerns it raises for employers going forward.
During its 2011 legislative session, the Maryland Legislature passed the Job Applicant Fairness Act, which was signed into law by Governor O’Malley on April 12. The law imposes significant restrictions on the ability of employers to perform credit checks on job applicants and employees. This article examines the details of the new law, and the likely effects for employers.
In November 2008, the District of Columbia enacted the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008 ("ASSLA" or the "Act"). In doing so, the District became the second of only two jurisdictions in the country to mandate paid sick and "safety" leave. Unfortunately, the new law resulted in more questions than answers. The District recently issued final regulations in an attempt to clarify the ASSLA.
This is the second of two articles on the potential legal issues that can arise from the use and misuse of social media in the workplace. Part 1 covered the use of social media in the pre-employment setting. Part 2 covers the use of social media in employment and post-employment situations.
On June 17th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board was not authorized to issue decisions in pending cases during a twenty-seven month period in which three of its five seats were vacant. The ruling was a victory for the employer in the case, New Process Steel, which had challenged an adverse ruling by the Board. But more significantly, the ruling of the Supreme Court puts into question almost 600 decisions issued by the two-member Board during a period of more than two years.
Although it may not come as a surprise to many HR professionals, in Maryland, an employee may, under certain circumstances, receive unemployment benefits while still employed.
As many seasoned HR professionals may know, oftentimes when a deposition is taken of a party or witness in litigation, the lawyer may request that the deponent or witness will "read and sign" the deposition.
Technically, this means that the witness is required to review the deposition transcript and make certain corrections on an "errata" sheet within 30 days from receipt of the transcript. Failure to do so will prevent the witness from later attempting to clarify and/or change his or her deposition testimony.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, referred to in the press as the "Economic Stimulus Act." One provision in this Act that has received relatively little publicity is a subsidy for former employees and their dependents who elected, or were offered the opportunity to elect, to continue health insurance coverage following termination of employment.
On March 10, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative George Miller (D-California) reintroduced the “Employee Free Choice Act of 2007” (EFCA) (S. 1041, H.R. 800), legislation, which, if passed, would dramatically change the way unions can organize workers. The EFCA was initially introduced in 2007, but was derailed by the Senate.
In today's unsettled economic climate, many employers are considering various ways to reduce payroll expenses. One common approach is to simply cut the salaries for your exempt employees.
Although such a practice can work, if it is not done correctly you may wind up losing the exempt status for your salaried employees, resulting in a significant unpaid overtime liability for all of those workers who may have been subject to the salary reduction.
The attached alert has been prepared for general informational purposes only and is not intended as specific legal advice and no legal or business decision should be based solely on its content.
Last Fall, the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR) changed its long-standing policy with regard to the payout of accrued but unused leave when an employee is terminated.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently held that an employer violated federal labor law by telling union supporters to look for jobs elsewhere if they were dissatisfied with their current jobs. The NLRB agreed with the administrative law judge (ALJ) that the statement constituted an unlawful threat to discharge workers based on their protected, concerted activities.
A telephone company customer service representative who was diagnosed as HIV positive while on medical leave for work-related stress is not disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Blanks v. Southwestern Bell Communications Inc., 13 AD Cases 1253, 5th Cir., 11/4/02).
An African American employee at a printing company in Missouri offered sufficient evidence to submit to a jury the issue of whether his employer knew or should have known about the alleged racially hostile work environment – including a physical threat of death directed specifically at the employee – but failed to take prompt and effective remedial action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled (Reedy v. Quebecor Printing Eagle, Inc., 8th Cir., 6/30/03).
For decades, employers have struggled with classifying their employees as “exempt” or “unexempt” from federal overtime compensation requirements under the FLSA, which became law in 1938. The current federal regulations governing the overtime exemption for “white —collar” employees are badly out of date and confusing. The costly effect of mis-classification has been substantial back pay liability and, more recently, class-action lawsuits. On March 31, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a proposal to modernize its regulations defining overtime exemptions for “white collar” employees in the administrative, executive, and professional employee classifications. The DOL estimates that the regulations will cover 110 million employees in 6.5 million establishments. The 90-day public comment period expired on June 30, 2003, and the DOL hopes to have the final regulations in effect by December 2003.
In a decision issued on January 15, 2002, the United States Supreme Court decided the hotly contested issue of whether an agreement between an employer and an employee to arbitrate employment-related disputes, bars the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) from pursuing victim-specific judicial relief, such as back pay, reinstatement, and damages, in an enforcement action alleging that the employer violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
A Georgia dental practice did not violate federal disability law by discharging a hygienist after finding out that he was HIV-positive, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held, affirming a lower court’s summary judgment to the employer, Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs. Inc., (11th Cir., December, 2001).
In holding that an employer need not accommodate an employee, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that a doctor’s note that stated the operation of heavy equipment “may pose problems” meant that the employee could not perform essential functions of a position. Mathews v. Denver Post, (10th Cir. 263 F.3d 1164 2001). Therefore the employer properly terminated an epileptic employee where the employee’s doctor stated that performing some of the essential functions of the job “may pose problems.”
In the recent case of Porterfield v. Mascari II, Inc., (Md. Ct. of Special Appeals, January, 2002) a female employee who consulted a lawyer after receiving a written warning for poor performance, and, as a result, was fired, cannot maintain a cause of action for wrongful discharge.
In McCabe v. Medex (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Sept. 2001) , Timothy McCabe began working for Medex as a sales representative in November 1998. McCabe received an annual salary of $49,000, plus commissions. At Medex, the fiscal year ran from February 1, 1999 through January 31, 2000. Pursuant to Medex’s Employee Handbook, all commissions were “conditional upon meeting targets and the participant being an employee at the time of actual payment . . . .”
Recently, in Toyota Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Ella Williams, the Supreme Court made clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA” or “Act”) imposes strict standards for finding “disability” status under the Act. While the case specifically addressed limitations on manual tasks caused by carpal tunnel syndrome and other conditions, the Court made clear that the Act generally should be strictly construed to create a “demanding standard” for an individual to qualify as “disabled” under the Act.
In the case of Baltimore Harbor Charters, Inc. v. Frank Ayd III (Sept., 2001), the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the founder and former president of Baltimore Harbor Charters, Inc., can keep the $66,000 he won in his breach of contract suit against the company. and can also try to treble that amount in a new trial under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The recently ended session of the Maryland legislature has passed legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, and public accommodations.
The new legislation amends Article 49B, the State’s current anti-discrimination law which protects from discrimination any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged discriminatory act based on race, sex, color, national origin, age, religion, marital status, or disability. Sexual orientation is defined as male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.
President Bush’s announcement that as many as 50,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves may be called up in the wake of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is prompting the Labor Department to ramp up efforts to inform employees and employers that jobs and benefits are protected in such situations.
Recently, the Maryland legislature passed a bill authorizing Maryland employers to conduct on-site drug testing of job applicants. The law became effective on October 1, 2001. It does not apply to testing of current employees. Under existing Maryland law, passed in 1989, employer substance abuse testing is limited to state certified labs. The law contains a series of procedural safeguards such as retesting of an original positive result, notification to the employee being tested of his/her rights, chain of custody safeguards, etc.
Setting a precedent for how companies can structure workplace labor-management committees without running afoul of labor laws, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Crown Cork & Seal Company got it right. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 334 NLRB No. 92, 7/20/01.
Kentucky River Community Care, Inc. (KRCC), an operator of a mental health care facility, refused to comply with an order to bargain with a labor union, arguing that the bargaining unit was not properly certified because it was made up of nurses who were “supervisors.” KRCC contended that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was incorrect in not exempting the nurses from the appropriate bargaining unit. It also argued that KRCC should not have been allocated the burden of proving the supervisory status of the nurses.
Eleventh Circuit Joins Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in Ruling That USERRA Requires Paid Military Leave When Employer Provides Paid Leave For “Comparable” Absences
Change to Maryland’s Cannabis Laws Raises Questions for Employers
An Early Report on How The Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Admissions Policies Decision Is Impacting The Private Sector
Supreme Court Toughens Standard In Religious Accommodation Cases
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: What Employers Should Know
In this webinar, Betsy Davis, partner and Co-Chair of Whiteford's Labor & Employment Section, discussed the significant changes introduced by the Department of Labor's Final Rule, issued in April 2024, which raised the salary threshold for salaried exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
In this webinar, Whiteford’s Labor and Employment Law Partners, Lisa Brauner and David Stevens, along with Eileen Johnson, Co-chair of Whiteford’s Associations & Nonprofit Organizations Section, discussed the significant changes to the salary threshold for salaried exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) following the U.S. Department of Labor's Final Rule issued in April 2024.
This webinar addresses the legal challenges presented by harassment, reverse discrimination and Section 1981 claims, among others, as well as various defenses and measures your team can take to reduce the risk of legal challenge. Presenters include Partners Peter Guattery and Dorothy Deng.
As this election year heads into full gear, many nonprofit organizations will have questions about the types of advocacy, policy, lobbying, fundraising, outreach and electoral activities they and their employees may undertake to promote their mission and policy objectives.
This webinar highlights trending obstacles in healthcare recruitment, examines the legal considerations for mechanisms used to entice recruits, and provides practical tips for compliance with specific healthcare and employment laws.
This webinar discusses what certain states and federal agencies are doing to attempt to limit or prohibit the use of non-competes and practical considerations for employers in light of these recent developments.
This webinar discusses the new Form I-9 and walks participants through the form and proper verification process. It also address new proposed regulations on remote verification procedures, who is eligible and who is not, and the implication of those changes for employers going forward.
With two coronavirus vaccines having been approved for emergency use, many employers are considering if compulsory vaccination is the best path. This webinar will review the recent EEOC guidance in regard to these vaccines and consider the implications of merely encouraging or mandating employees to get vaccinated.
On January 23, David Stevens and Katelyn Brady presented a webinar addressing the five HR issues that are frequent stumbling blocks for employers seeking to maintain compliance and avoid costly litigation.
On May 30, Peter Guattery presented a webinar that outlined practical steps to assist employers in bringing existing leave policies in compliance with the new “Maryland Healthy Working Families Act.”
The District of Columbia has enacted a law that will prohibit employers with 10 or more full-time employees from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal history during the initial application process. There is similar legislation pending in Montgomery County, Maryland, and a public hearing on the proposed law is scheduled for September 9.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2025. Nineteen of the firm’s practices are ranked in Virginia.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2025. Twenty-two of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, and the firm’s Bankruptcy, Construction and Labor & Employment litigation practices have been recognized with national Tier 1 rankings.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2024 list of leading firms and business lawyers.
As reported in Law360, Whiteford announced today that seven attorneys have joined the firm in Delaware, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania, including veteran employment, restructuring and litigation lawyers.
87 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 (copyright 2023 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken S.C.). New practice areas of recognition include CleanTech Law and Entertainment and Sports Law. The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington offices. Client comments are posted on the Best Lawyers website, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2023 list of leading firms and business lawyers.
Whiteford, Taylor and Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers ® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2023.
73 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2023 (copyright 2022 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken S.C.). The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D.C. offices. Client comments are posted on the U.S. News & Best Lawyers web site, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2022 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 29 attorneys in 14 practice areas at the National and State level.
Whiteford, Taylor and Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers ® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2022. Twenty-one of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, and the firm’s bankruptcy and Construction Litigation practices have been recognized with national Tier 1 rankings. At the state level, new recognitions include Admiralty & Maritime Law, Nonprofit/Charities Law, Patent Law and Privacy and Data Security Law.
A record 75 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2022 (copyright 2021 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken S.C.). The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington offices. Client comments are posted on the U.S. News & Best Lawyers web site, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2021 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 25 attorneys in 11 practice areas in 3 states and the District of Columbia.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to have represented the owners of Ivy Ventures, LLC, in the sale of their membership interests to Centauri Health Solutions, Inc.
Whiteford, Taylor and Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2021. Twenty-two of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, and the firm’s Bankruptcy and Environmental Law practices have been recognized with national Tier 1 rankings.
Four lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been named to the Benchmark Litigation 40 & Under Hotlist: Todd Brooks, Aaron Casagrande, Cara Murray, David Stevens.
A record 71 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2021 (copyright 2020 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken S.C.). The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington offices. Client comments are posted on the U.S. News & Best Lawyers web site, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2020 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 23 attorneys in 10 practice areas in 3 states and the District of Columbia.
Whiteford, Taylor and Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers ® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2020. Twenty of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, including two bankruptcy practices with national Tier 1 rankings. At the state level, an additional forty-two practices have been ranked in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and VA.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is proud to have represented the selling owners of Accumark, Inc., Pipe Vision, LLC and Benchmark VA LLC Subsurface Utility Services (collectively, “Accumark”) in their sale to Hoffman Southwest, a rapidly growing provider of water flow inspection, repair and cleaning services.
64 lawyers from Whiteford, Taylor & Preston have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2020. The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington offices. Client comments are posted on the U.S. News & Best Lawyers web site, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that twenty of its attorneys are listed among the 2019 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars in D.C., Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2019 list of leading firms and business lawyers.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers ® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2019. Eighteen of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, including two practices with national Tier 1 rankings: Litigation and Bankruptcy. At the state level, an additional forty-six practices have been ranked in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and VA.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2018 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes 29 attorneys in a record 12 practice areas in 4 states, the District of Columbia and Afghanistan.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that Chambers and Partners has once again ranked the firm highly in its 2017 list of leading firms and business lawyers. This year’s recognition includes a record 29 attorneys in 4 states, the District of Columbia and Afghanistan.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that 41 of its attorneys are listed among the 2017 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars in Maryland and Kentucky joining the sixteen who were listed earlier this year in Delaware, D.C., Pennsylvania and Virginia.
As a reminder to all clients, the DOL Final Regulations which substantially modified the salary basis test for exempt employees under federal Wage and Hour laws, will go into effect on December 1. As discussed in our client alert when the regulations were issued, these regulations will more than double the current required salary for certain exempt employees. Employers who have not reviewed their current staffing to determine how these regulations will affect them, should do so now.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that, in addition to ranking the firm highly in its 2016 list of Maryland’s leading firms and business lawyers, Chambers and Partners have added new Whiteford lawyers in Maryland and Delaware.
The practice group rankings are based on the high rankings of 21 individual lawyers.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston is pleased to announce that the 2015 edition of Chambers USA recognizes 17 of its lawyers as leaders in their fields and, in addition, has ranked six of Whiteford’s practice areas.
Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP is very gratified to announce that the firm has once again received exemplary ratings in the fifth annual U.S. News & World Report rankings of law firms.
Please attend WTP's 22nd Annual 2008 Employment Law Update Seminar
Friday, October 3rd
The Tremont Grand
225 N. Charles Street, Baltimore MD
8:30 am - 3:15 pm
Please join us for this educational and informative all-day seminar dedicated exclusively to employment related issues and concerns for our clients and friends of the firm. Our workshop format allows you to learn from WTP attorneys and your peers.
Please attend WTP's 21st Annual 2007 Employment Law Update Seminar
Wednesday, October 10th
Tremont Grand Hotel
225 N. Charles Street, Baltimore MD
8:30 am - 3:15 pm
You are cordially invited to an all-day seminar dedicated exclusively to employment-related issues and concerns for our clients and friends of the firm. The workshop format allows you to learn from WTP attorneys and your peers. We hope that you will be able to join us for this educational and informative day.
Guest Speaker: J. Ronald DeJuliis, Maryland Commissioner of Labor & Industry
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP (WTP) is pleased to announce that 36 WTP attorneys have been named in Maryland Super Lawyers publication. Maryland Super Lawyers will appear in a special advertising section in the January 2007 issue of BaltimoreMagazine and in the Maryland Super Lawyers magazine.
This will be our 20th year of an all-day seminar dedicated exclusively to employment-related issues and concerns for our clients and friends of the firm. We hope that you will be able to join us for this educational and informative day
The workshop format allows you to learn from WTP attorneys and your peers.
January 4, 2006 - Baltimore, MD - Whiteford, Taylor & Preston (WTP) is pleased to announce that James P. Gillece and Jeanne M. Phelan have been named as leading practitioners in the field of Labor and Employment Law by Who's Who Legal.
Their names appear in Who's Who Legal: USA - Management Labour & Employment, a new publication produced by the highly respected British survey group that has produced the International Who's Who of Business Lawyers for many years.
