Author: JGL Law

The Washington Post recently highlighted how for the third year in a row our Washington area streets have had over 100 pedestrian deaths per year.

While numbers on the national level seem to be declining slightly, in the Washington D.C. area, they continue to grow as the range of pedestrians killed per 100,000 residents:

• From 2015-2018: 1 in 100,000 residents
• In 2022, 2023, 2024: 2 in 100,000 residents

The Post Highlights Key Factors:

• Jonathan Adkins, Governors Highway Safety Association, is encouraged by added pedestrian infrastructure across the region.
• Sharon Kershbaum, director of the DC Department of Transportation, stated the vast majority of deaths last year — nearly 80 percent — “were tied to reckless and antisocial behavior” that is difficult to combat through engineering alone.
• While reviewing the data across Maryland, Virginia and DC, Post analysis found both structural and personal factors contributing to the spike in deaths, including poorly lit roads and more crashes involving alcohol. In fact, 73 pedestrians in Montgomery County, Prince George’s County and Northern Virginia were killed from 2022 to 2024 where dark roads were a contributing factor.
• In addition, as traffic enforcement has decreased since the pandemic, deaths have gone up. While DC invested heavily in automated traffic enforcement after the pandemic leading to 2 million speed-related infractions in 2024, many fewer tickets were issued by officers. The Post found in 2019, DC police officers issued more than 10,000 speed related citations, but between 2023 and 2024 the department issued just over 4,650.
• Law enforcement has also addressed concerns with hit-and-runs as Prince Georges County police investigated 13 fatal hit-and-runs involving pedestrians in 2024, up from 7 in 2023. Of the 15 fatal hit-and-run crashes in 2024 in D.C., not a single driver has been charged for any of these events.
• Maryland and Virginia lawmakers have proposed legislation to expand their speed cameras beyond work and school zones. Maryland and DC are looking at ways to sue out-of-state drivers for failure to pay automatic tickets issued by traffic cameras.

Small Changes in Speed Can Have Big Impacts

As people travel fast, the risk of death or serious injury rises dramatically. The diagram below shows that a pedestrian or bicyclist struck by a motorist driving 40 mph is EIGHT times more likely to die than a pedestrian or bicyclist struck at 20 mph.

While Laws Across the DMV Are Similar, They Are Not Identical

While Maryland, Virginia, and DC law generally prohibits people from recovering compensation after an accident if they contribute to their own injuries, DC has an exception when it comes to pedestrians and cyclists. In some cases, pedestrians and cyclists can still seek compensation even if they are partially to blame for a crash.

DC is a tourist destination. With visitors from across the globe, the city must strive to protect citizens and visitors alike. DC’s pedestrian laws govern a broad range of behavior. (PDF)

• All intersections are considered crosswalks, regardless of how they are marked. Pedestrians have the right of way in both marked and unmarked crosswalks and should always use crosswalks if available.
• Pedestrians must follow traffic signs if available and must walk on the sidewalk, facing oncoming traffic.
• DC Right of Way rules that at a pedestrian crossing with no signals, drivers must stop to yield to pedestrians and drivers must let them safely reach the other side before making their way across the crosswalk. On sidewalks, pedestrians have the complete right of way. Pedestrians also have the right of way over vehicles turning on a green light.
• However, pedestrians cannot cross an intersection diagonally unless it is authorized by traffic control signs. It is also against the law for pedestrians to suddenly enter the street if it causes a traffic hazard and pedestrians can get tickets for jaywalking. Be careful drivers, even if a pedestrian receives a jaywalking ticket, you may still be held liable in a civil case in court depending on the circumstances.

Under Virginia law, a pedestrian is considered anyone not operating a car, truck, motorcycle or any other motor vehicle, including bicyclists, skateboarders, and roller skates. Virginia law requires drivers to yield to pedestrians at all crosswalks when they are present, and pedestrians may not obstruct traffic or engage in behavior which would put them at risk of being hit by a motor vehicle. § 46.2-924

• At crosswalks, pedestrians are not allowed to walk outside of crosswalks and only have the right of way in marked crosswalks. Pedestrians must use the “walk” and “don’t walk” signs. Pedestrians in crosswalks have the right of way over all vehicles including those turning right on red.
• Virginia does follow contributory negligence laws which does mean that when assigning blame, even if a pedestrian is 1% at fault for the accident, they are not allowed to seek compensation for their injuries.
• Pedestrians should stay out of the way of oncoming traffic, be alert and cautious at intersection. Pedestrians may not enter or cross an intersection in disregard for approaching traffic.

In 2021, Maryland enacted the Maryland Vulnerable Road User law which has strong penalties aimed at protecting pedestrians with fines up to $2000 per violation, plus points for convicted violators. Maryland laws are similar to Virginia.

• At crosswalks, if a pedestrian is on the half of the roadway where the driver’s vehicle is traveling or is approaching the half of the roadway where the driver’s vehicle is traveling, drivers must come to a complete stop and other vehicles are not allowed to pass vehicles currently stopped to allow for pedestrians to pass.
• Pedestrians have the right of way to a turning vehicle in a crosswalk, but pedestrians must comply with the same red and green lights drivers do. Pedestrians must always use crosswalks and sidewalks when available and never cross an intersection diagonally.

Let’s All Get There Safely

Pedestrian safety affects young and old, drivers and walkers, during the day and at night. Everyone can be a pedestrian in some capacity at one point or another. Intoxication, ignorance, or inattentiveness by either or both motorists or pedestrians may can cause injuries and fatalities.

Slow down, pay attention, and always be alert for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Pedestrians and Drivers Share the Same Roads

If you were the victim of a pedestrian accident, there are some important things to do right away:

• Call the Police
• Seek Medical Assistance
• Take pictures of the scene, ask about witnesses (names and numbers)
• Document your injuries
• Do not discuss fault at the scene or with the other driver’s insurance company

Speak to an Experienced Pedestrian Law Attorney

You can protect your legal rights, experienced attorneys know how to get you fair compensation if you are injured in a pedestrian accident in Maryland, Virginia or the District of Columbia.

Get the facts. Get educated.

Gia Grimm and Bridget Cardinale will attend the Plaintiffs’ Law Association’s inaugural Plaintiffs’ Law Fair at Georgetown Law on March 18, 2025.

The informational fair will feature representatives from 15 plaintiffs’ firms and other mission-driven organizations who work across a variety of practice areas and represent plaintiffs in civil rights, employment, consumer protection, antitrust, whistleblower and securities matters. The informal event will provide students with the opportunity to learn more about public interest work in the private sector.

In an article published in The Washington Post on February 27, 2025, Jay Holland was quoted about the move to dismiss a federal civil rights case against the Maryland State Police (MSP). The dismissal was filed by the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland at the request of the Justice Department. No reason was provided for the dismissal, nor was there an explanation of how Maryland should proceed.

The case at the heart of the dismissal accused the MSP of discriminating against Black and female trooper applicants. The matter was resolved months ago, when the state entered into a consent decree with the Justice Department, agreeing to a $2.75 million settlement and a host of changes. It’s unclear what will happen to the payments or other requirements of the consent decree now that federal prosecutors have moved to end the case.

The alleged discriminatory practices led a group of state troopers to file their own lawsuit against the MSP in U.S. District Court in Maryland. The lawsuit accuses the agency of denying promotions for officers of color, imposing harsher penalties on them compared with White officers and allowing a work environment that subjected them to racist comments. JGL principal Jay Holland represents the police officers in this case, which is ongoing. Holland weighed in on the dismissal of the federal civil rights case.

“It will not affect our case one iota. Whether this new administration has any interest in enforcing our country’s civil rights laws does not affect our interest in doing so for the state troopers who have been victims of illegal discrimination. We will continue to fight for the equal rights of our state troopers.”

Read the full article “Trump administration orders dismissal of Md. state police civil rights case.” (PDF)

JGL principal Veronica Nannis will present on a panel at the D.C. Bar’s March 18, 2025, remote program “Could My Client Be a Whistleblower? How to Identify Potential Whistleblower Clients and What to Do Next.” JGL associate Gia Grimm will moderate the event.

The event will be hosted by the bar association’s Labor & Employment Steering Committee. JGL principal Erika Jacobsen White is a member of the committee and helped develop the program.

During the event, panelists will share their expertise on identifying potential whistleblower clients and the subsequent steps to take. The program is designed to equip employment attorneys with the knowledge and tools needed to recognize whistleblower claims and navigate the complexities of such cases. Speakers will also provide practical guidance on key indicators that your employment client may have a whistleblower claim, the legal framework and protections available to whistleblowers, best practices for advising and representing whistleblower clients, and strategies for effectively litigating whistleblower cases. Attendees will gain valuable insights into the nuances of whistleblower law and learn how to advocate for their clients effectively.

Learn more and register for the remote program.

In Houser v. Houser, 262 Md. App. 473 (2024), the Appellate Court of Maryland upheld a circuit court ruling that rejected a child support waiver agreement between two parents.

The court affirmed that child support is a legal obligation upon a parent and one that cannot be waived by agreement of the parties, reinforcing Maryland’s public policy position in favor of assuring financial support for children by their parents. The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari and will hear arguments on March 3, 2025. The case has garnered significant attention, as its outcome could have a meaningful impact on the legal landscape surrounding parental autonomy in child support agreements.

Key Issues in Houser v. Houser

At the heart of Houser v. Houser is the question of whether parents have the constitutional right to agree that no child support will be paid, even when both parents are financially capable of providing for the child. The circuit court refused to accept such an agreement and instead applied Maryland’s statutory child support guidelines, despite the parents’ mutual agreement to the contrary.

While adversarial in designation, the parties were aligned in their appellate positions and argued, among many arguments, that their agreement was in the best interests of their child and that the court’s refusal to honor it violated their fundamental rights under the United States Supreme Court opinion of Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). The Appellate Court rejected this argument, distinguishing Troxel as addressing physical custody rights as opposed to parental agreements regarding financial obligations to their children.

Why a Further Appeal Matters

A Maryland Supreme Court decision on this matter could have far-reaching implications for family law. Here’s why:

1. Clarification of Parental Autonomy vs. State Interest

This case presents an opportunity for the Maryland high court to delineate the boundaries between a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions for their child and the state’s role in ensuring financial support for children. While prior cases establish that parents cannot waive child support obligations, the parents in Houser argue that their financial arrangement serves the best interests of their child. A ruling from the Supreme Court of Maryland offers an opportunity to provide further clarification as to whether or not Maryland courts may honor such agreements.

2. Potential Shift in Child Support Law

Maryland law currently mandates that courts use child support guidelines unless applying them would be “unjust or inappropriate.” However, courts rarely deviate from these guidelines unless exceptional circumstances exist. If the Supreme Court of Maryland rules in favor of the parents in Houser, the door could open for parties and litigators alike to enjoy more flexibility regarding child support arrangements, particularly in high-income cases where the guidelines may be seen as excessive or unnecessary.

3. Addressing Public Policy Concerns

The Appellate Court of Maryland emphasized a strong public policy position that a child’s right to receive support cannot be waived by a parent. While critics argue that rigid application of child support guidelines may not always reflect the nuanced realities of co-parenting, the state (in this instance, the court) is duty bound to protect the best interests of minor child by way of the State’s role as parens patriae. Therefore, an opportunity, such as this matter, to balance such significant interests is rare.

4. Impact on Future Custody and Support Agreements

Of course, the significance of this matter is only realized against the backdrop of the countless cases that will follow wherein parents seek to negotiate child support terms. Any seasoned practitioner of Maryland family law understands that a downward deviation of child support is not a straightforward proposition, much less a deviation to zero. Therefore, an appellate decision that will determine the extent of parental authority regarding child support is notable. If the Supreme Court of Maryland upholds the ruling, it will reinforce the principle that child support is an obligation with very little room for negotiation, if any, potentially deterring parents from attempting similar agreements in the future. If it reverses, then there may be a shift toward greater judicial deference to parental decision-making in financial matters, impacting custody settlements and child support agreements statewide.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Maryland’s forthcoming review of Houser v. Houser is poised to be a notable decision in family law. Whether it reaffirms the strict application of child support guidelines or allows for some degree of parental discretion, the ruling will shape the legal landscape for years to come. Like me, family law practitioners and parents with child support disputes should closely follow this case, as its resolution could redefine how Maryland courts balance parental rights with the state’s interest in child support.

In an article published on February 24, 2025, by The Washington Post JGL Principal Drew LaFramboise was quoted about the class action lawsuit against the Psychiatric Institute of Washington, which alleges widespread mistreatment of patients at the hospital. LaFramboise and JGL Principal Veronica Nannis are co-counsel for the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, a patient alleges that the institution prioritizes profits over patient care, systematically committing patients when not medically necessary to maximize insurance payments. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the patient and certification of a class of thousands of patients involuntarily hospitalized at the facility in the decade since it was acquired by corporate hospital giant Universal Health Services.

“Behind this is a massive corporate enterprise that is continuing to expand rapidly and has made no bones about the fact that they are interested in nothing more than expansion and increasing occupancy in these facilities,” said LaFramboise.

Read the full article “D.C. psych hospital committed patients to boost profits, lawsuit says.” (PDF)

Additional press coverage is available:

Psychiatric hospital in DC accused of neglect, abuse – WUSA Channel 9

Lawsuit: Psych Hospital Faked Records to Boost Profits – Newser

In an article published in The Legal Intelligencer, Paul Riekhof discusses important estate planning considerations when going through a divorce.

Riekhof explains that people in the process of getting a divorce or who have just become divorced need to address five main elements related to their estate plans: their last will and testaments or revocable trusts, financial powers of attorney, health care powers of attorney and medical directives, life insurance and retirement plan beneficiary designations, and jointly owned assets.

Riekhof explains that divorce, estate and trust laws differ substantially between states. More than 40 states have laws that automatically revoke provisions of pre-divorce estate planning documents upon divorce. However, only 26 states have laws regarding whether a divorce produces an automatic effect on predivorce beneficiary designations. To ensure that your assets pass according to your wishes, it’s important to quickly change all estate planning documents and beneficiary designations upon divorce, Riekhof writes.

Planning for children and other beneficiaries is also an important part of divorce estate planning, Riekhof says, and it’s especially critical if minor children are involved. That includes determining who will manage the assets, who will be involved, and when the assets will be turned over to the children.

Divorces are stressful, and many people don’t consider estate planning when going through a divorce proceeding. If done correctly, Riekhof concludes, estate planning doesn’t have to add to that stress. He further states that taking steps to change the five important elements of an estate plan is a crucial part of fully severing the legal relationship with and avoiding unintentional benefits to a former spouse.

Read the full article “The Keys to Estate Planning During and After Divorce” on the Law.com website (subscription required).

CBS Mornings interviewed Michal Shinnar on February 18, 2025, about the firing of federal employees. The news segment highlighted a former federal employee hired by the FAA in December who was fired on February 14.

The federal worker said she received an email blaming the termination on her performance; however, she never received any negative feedback about the work she was doing. She held the position for less than one year and, therefore, had not yet received civil service protection at the time of her termination.

Shinnar told CBS Mornings that the termination appears to be “a purely false stated reason.” She notes Trump’s team has been citing performance in firing because by law probationary federal workers can only be removed for performance or misconduct. “This situation is ripe for class action lawsuits,” said Shinnar.

Watch the interview to learn more.

Our highways, city and rural streets have never been more dangerous. Since the pandemic, driving behavior has changed across the United States as we are plagued with distracted driving, speeding, and a decrease in traffic enforcement.

On February 12, 2025, David Rouzer, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, released opening remarks titled “America Builds: A Review of Programs to Address Roadway Safety” from a hearing about the Subcommittee’s efforts to improve highway safety through policy and program reviews within the Department of Transportation. Summarized below are the most important pieces of information from the hearing.

Driver behavior has changed considerably since the pandemic

The significant increase in traffic fatalities since the onset of the pandemic appears largely related to increased risks being taken by drivers. In an October 2021 report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that “after the declaration of the public health emergency in March 2020, driving patterns and behaviors in the United States changed significantly. Of the drivers who remained on the roads, some engaged in riskier behavior, including speeding, failure to wear seat belts, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that across the U.S.:

• Nearly 41,000 people died in motor vehicle related crashes in 2023, down 3.6 percent from 2022, but overall fatalities were still up compared to the last decade.
• After pandemic-era closures began in March of 2020, driving trips dropped by 60 percent and speeding risks increased by 64 percent.
• The risks increased as traffic enforcement declined after police officers held back from “nonessential” contact.
• In 2021, traffic fatalities jumped over 10 percent, the highest number since 2005 and the largest increase since 1975.
• In 2022, NHTSA found that 40 percent of all traffic fatalities occurred in rural areas on non-interstate roads, despite only 20 percent of the population living in rural areas.

In addition, almost 50 percent of Americans say that people in their area drive somewhat less safely or a lot less safely than before the pandemic. Seventy-eight percent of Americans also think that cellphone use is a major problem in their area, while 63 percent think speeding and aggressive driving are substantial issues. (Source: Pew Research Center).

What’s in the Committee’s Plan?

• Provide states and local governments flexibility to implement programs in our rural communities.
• Encourage states to develop Highway Safety Improvement Programs
• Adapt pavement and guardrail standards to new vehicle technology such as electric vehicles which weigh more than traditional vehicles.
• Address work zone safety which puts roadside workers at greater risk of injury or death. According to the Associated General Contractors of America, 64 percent of contractors reported a motor vehicle had crashed into their work zone since 2020.

Three Key Takeaways

• Post-pandemic driving levels are now back up to the pre-pandemic levels and with federal employees returning to work, the numbers will be higher.
• The new normal of post-pandemic driving habits put people at risk of severe injuries and death.
• Put down your cell phones and pay attention to the road.

What to Do After an Accident

If you or a loved one is in an auto accident, contact an experienced Personal Injury attorney. At Joseph Greenwald and Laake PA, we serve people in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia.

The Daily Record and the Maryland State Bar Association named Lindsay Parvis and Celeste Cunningham to the 2025 Leaders in Law.

The award honors Maryland’s legal leaders who have shown tremendous dedication to the legal profession and selfless, tireless commitment to the community. This award pays tribute to the ways in which legal professionals are serving businesses, clients and individuals across Maryland and making communities stronger. Lindsay and Celeste will be honored at an awards celebration on April 7, 2025.

A principal with JGL, Lindsay concentrates her practice in family law and related issues. For more than 20 years she has helped individuals and families navigate some of life’s biggest challenges: divorce, custody, domestic violence, and financial matters like alimony, child support and property division.

Celeste, who manages the firm’s paralegals and the personal injury practice, has been a valued member of the staff for more than two decades.

DC’s only private psychiatric hospital has a long well-documented track record of neglect and abuse

Washington, DC–A new class action lawsuit alleges that the Psychiatric Institute of Washington (PIW), under the control and ownership of Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS), has engaged in a years-long pattern of patient mistreatment, in violation of federal and state law. This lawsuit was brought by a local woman, on behalf of a class of similarly-situated former patients of PIW, who experienced mistreatment after being involuntarily hospitalized at the facility. The lawsuit comes after similar findings and investigations by the Council of the District of Columbia, patient advocates DC Disability Rights, and other victims.

The lawsuit describes a systemic pattern of neglect and abuse at PIW. It alleges that PIW engages in widespread falsification of patients’ medical records and unlawful involuntary hospitalizations, fails to provide indicated and necessary treatment, is chronically and intentionally understaffed, and subjects patients to unsafe and unsanitary conditions. The class action focuses on UHS’s corporate strategy of prioritizing profits over the safety and wellbeing of patients.

“In this case, we’ve alleged that the Psychiatric Institute of Washington and their corporate leadership at Universal Health Services will stop at nothing to increase the number of patients and maximize profits and shareholder value, regardless of the impact on their patient population,” said Drew LaFramboise, principal at Joseph Greenwald & Laake, and attorney for the plaintiff.

UHS has been subject to numerous investigations and lawsuits, including an October 28, 2024 hearing by the D.C. City Council Committee on Health focused on PIW and the District’s oversight of the facility. A 2022 investigation by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee that found that residential behavioral health providers, including UHS, “optimize per diems by filling large facilities to capacity and maximize profit by concurrently reducing the number and quality of staff in facilities.” In 2020, the United States settled a lawsuit against UHS for $122 million for their alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act. The United States’ suit alleged UHS’s failure to provide adequate staffing, training, and supervision of staff, regular use of improper restraint and seclusion, failure to discharge patients when hospitalization was no longer necessary, failure to develop and/or update treatment plans, and inadequate psychotherapy and discharge planning, as pertaining to beneficiaries of federal health insurance programs.

“We are proud to represent our client and others who may come forward in their search for accountability from the Psychiatric Institute of Washington for claims of systematic, involuntary hospitalization and other harm,” said Veronica Nannis, principal at Joseph Greenwald & Laake and attorney for the plaintiff.

Psychiatric Institute of Washington, the only private psychiatric hospital in Washington, D.C. and is located at 4228 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. Universal Health Services, Inc., the largest owner and operator of for-profit hospitals in the country, and is located in King of Prussia, PA.

To learn more about this case, click here.

Federal employees are now starting to see the impact of Trump’s Executive Order directing the agencies to take steps to eliminate civil rights protections of transgender Americans.’

Broadly, the order seeks to falsely designate biological sex as binary, cast equal rights for all Americans irrespective of their sex or gender as impermissible “gender ideology,” and implement federal agency actions based on these new discriminatory definitions.

How Could the Executive Order Be Used to Implement Discrimination?

There are several key areas that this executive order seeks to implement discriminatory practices, which include:

• Directing all federal agencies to enforce laws, regulations, and guidance “governing sex-based rights protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes,” and to implement the discriminatory definitions set forth in the order, rather than based on the current letter of the law.
• Requiring that all identification on any government-issued documents including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards identify people based on a person’s “biological sex” as defined in this discriminatory manner.
• Ordering all federal agencies to remove any policies, regulations, forms, or other publications of any kind that refer to sex and gender in any manner other than the discriminatory definition included in the executive order.
• Effectively ordering the Attorney General to ignore Supreme Court precedent in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which held that sexual orientation discrimination, including discrimination against transgender Americans, is forbidden under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and provide guidance to federal agencies in accordance with the Executive Order’s discriminatory definition of sex instead.
• Forbidding federal funds from “promoting gender ideology.”
• Creating a host of new rules for “intimate spaces” for “women” as defined by the Executive Order including, but not limited to, housing prisoners according to the executive order’s discriminatory definition of biological sex, as well as prohibiting gender affirming healthcare to prisoners.

Significantly, the order itself contemplates that the terms of the executive order be codified in a bill that would presumably be passed by Congress.

What Is Bostock and What Does This Mean for Federal Employees?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (commonly referred to as “Title VII”), prevents discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County that an employer cannot fire or discriminate against someone simply for “being homosexual or transgender.” The Court was clear that “[a]n employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

So, for now, discrimination based on your sex – including your sexual orientation, or because you are transgender, is prohibited by law. Discrimination includes any adverse employment action that causes you some harm and may include transfers, demotions, and similar employment actions even if your pay is not impacted. Likewise, discrimination is prohibited in hiring and promotions. Moreover, when you oppose illegal employment discrimination, your employer – including the Federal Government – cannot retaliate against you because of your complaints.

What Can Federal Employees Do?

Given the complexity of these issues and the quickly changing judicial landscape, it is important to consult with an employment lawyer about your rights. Employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity remains illegal.

Importantly, federal employees, unlike those in the private sector, have an extremely short window within which to complain about discrimination or you can lose your right to sue. You must report the discrimination, harassment, or retaliation to an EEO Counselor within 45 days from the date it occurred. If your complaint is not resolved at that stage, you have to file a “formal” discrimination complaint through your agency’s EEO office. You have just 15 days to file your formal complaint after receiving notice from the EEO Counselor on how to file, so it is critical that you pay close attention to any communications from the agency regarding your complaint. For an overview of the complaint process for federal employees, click here for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s overview of all relevant timelines.

Downstream Impact – Federal Contractors

If you are an employee of a federal contractor in the private sector, you are also protected from discrimination and retaliation. You should complain in writing to your employer. Employees in the private sector are required to file a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of the discrimination/retaliation (300 days in some jurisdictions). You may also have protections under state or local anti-discrimination laws. You should consult with an employment lawyer about your rights.

Changing Landscape

An executive order is not passed by Congress and is subject to judicial scrutiny. It can also be invalidated or approved by an act of Congress. We can expect legal challenges to this and other executive orders signed by Trump that seek to expressly invalidate rights otherwise protected by law or the U.S. Constitution. If you are facing discrimination or harassment because of your sexual orientation or gender identity, contact a lawyer and stand up for your rights.

This article is not legal advice. Erika Jacobsen White is an employment and civil rights lawyer with Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. in Greenbelt, Maryland who practices in D.C., Maryland, and California.