A friend of mine recently called me in a panic. After returning from a weeklong vacation out of the country, his manager asked to meet in an empty conference room. Apparently during his absence, the members of my friend’s team had missed an important deadline. Although he was not personally responsible for the deadline itself, a critical component necessary to meet it was hidden away in a file that only he had access to. Unable to locate the file, and unable to reach my friend either by phone or email, the team missed the deadline and his company was forced to pass on a major opportunit
We may not all know the term emoji, but we have all seen them or used them. Emojis are small digital images or icons used to express an idea or emotion onine. The term is only a couple of decades old and derives from the Japanese words e, a picture, and moji, a letter or character.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not require that warehouse workers who package goods for Amazon be paid for the time they spend going through mandatory security screenings at the end of their shifts. These warehouse workers are required to go through a screening process—which is intended to prevent theft and can sometimes take as long as 25 minutes—before they are permitted to leave for the day. The Court ruled that the workers are not legally entitled to be paid for that time. Predictably, there has been strong reaction to the ruling, with some calling it a slap in the face to America’s blue-collar workers and others calling on Congress to change the law.
Despite the strong reaction, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Amazon warehouse workers case might have little impact in Maryland and other states with similar labor laws. Although the decision is the final word on the issue under federal law, it does not dictate state law. In Maryland, state law would likely require an employer to pay employees for time spent in mandatory security screenings and other mandatory, onsite tasks. This post will give an overview of the Supreme Court’s decision and look at how Maryland state law differs.
Understanding the new “ban the box” laws in Montgomery County and Prince George’s County
Most people would assume that the question, “do you have a criminal record?,” would come up early in a job application process. And if the answer is, “yes,” it would likely be a very short process. But within the last month, Montgomery County and Prince George’s County have enacted laws restricting employers’ use of criminal histories in hiring. This post explores these new labor laws and how they will impact employers and employees in these counties.
NBC Settles Class Action Lawsuit Brought By Former Saturday Night Live "Unpaid" Interns for $6.4 Million: What's An Employer To Do About Unpaid Internships
In this tight job market, many students over the last decade have turned to unpaid internships to get their feet in the business door and gain some real-world job experience for their light resumes. Some even solicit employers to try to convince them to take on unpaid interns at their companies. At first blush, it seems like a fine concept: the student gets job experience and makes networking connections while the employer enjoys some free labor. In a down economy with lean company budgets and fierce job competition, this is a win-win situation. Right?
On October 1, 2014 the Fairness for All Marylanders Act (“FAMA”) went into effect. FAMA, which was originally discussed in the JGL Law Blog post (Will Prince George’s County residents face less fairness if The Fairness for All Marylanders Act of 2014 (SB 212) becomes law? Possibly.) prohibits discrimination of Maryland employees on the basis of gender identity or transgender status. In passing FAMA, Maryland joined sixteen other states as the only states to cover sexual orientation and gender identity in employment anti-discrimination laws. While many state and local laws expressly protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals from workplace harassment and discrimination, the majority of states do not, leaving many of those employees who wish to pursue claims of sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination to rely on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).
The Legal Appeal of the Ray Rice Appeal: Despite a Broken Process, Ray Rice’s Indefinite Suspension Should Be Reversed on Appeal
(Photo Credit: UPI/ AP; New York Post)
One of the most explosive issues in sports right now is the NFL’s discipline of its players. Discipline has been inconsistent, the NFL is accused of seriously mishandling cases, and there is public outcry about some players’ conduct. The two-game suspension, and subsequent indefinite suspension, of former Ravens’ running back Ray Rice is reflective of many of the broken parts of this process.
Eight years ago, Maryland’s Reasonable Accommodations for Pregnant Workers Act (“RAPWA”) , which went into effect on October 1, 2013, did not exist, and the United Parcel Service (“UPS”) denied a pregnant Maryland employee’s request to lift no more than 20 pounds at work on the written advisement of her doctor.
Last year, Chief Justice John Roberts, in ruling with the majority that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, wrote “Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare.” Even if true, this statement does not speak to the prevalence of subtly discriminatory actions, often based on hidden, deep-se
Can an employer be liable for racist and sexist comments by a client or business partner—someone who does not even work for the employer—toward one of its employees?
Under a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is “yes.” In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., a decision issued on April 29, 2014, the Fourth Circuit recognized that an employer can be liable for harassment perpetrated by a third-party against one of its employees.
This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.