Former JGL Attorney Levi Zaslow has been appointed to the Baltimore City Court by Governor Wes Moore.
Click here to read the article featured in The Daily Report (PDF).
Author: JGL Law
- Website
- https://www.jgllaw.com
Posts by JGL Law
HB 419 is designed to enhance employee rights and consumer rights.
Chris Castellano was invited to speak on The Divorce Hour (Digital Radio Talk show) hosted by Ilyssa Panitz on Saturday, February 10th. Chris discussed the role AI is starting to play in Divorce actions.
JGL attorney Debora Fajer-Smith’s article “The Wonderful World of Workers’ Compensation” was featured in the PGCBA News Journal, read it here.
Chris Castellano was invited to speak on The Divorce Hour (Digital Radio Talk show) hosted by Ilyssa Panitz on Saturday, February 10th. Chris discussed the role AI is starting to play in Divorce actions.
JGL Law was featured on Law.com’s latest article entitled “DC-Area Walmart Stores Accused of Mispricing Items, Charging More at Check Out in Class Action Lawsuit.” Joseph Greenwald & Laake and Dworken & Bernstein filed this suit in the District of Columbia Superior Court on behalf of Christina Rector. The JGL attorneys who represented Ms. Rector were Drew LaFramboise and Veronica Nannis.
Read the full article (PDF)
JGL Principal Erika Jacobson-White has been elevated to 2024 Board President for the First Shift Justice Project, which is a nonprofit organization that helps working parents assert their workplace rights to prevent job loss.
The organization services the DC, Maryland, and Virginia communities. Erika has served as a board member since 2020 when she began as Secretary of the Board. In 2023 Erika served as Board Vice-President.
Yesterday, a class action complaint was filed in DC Superior Court against Walmart Inc. alleging that by advertising and offering goods without the intent to sell them as offered in their Washington, DC, stores, Walmart violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) (DC Code § 28-3905).
Under the DC CPPA, consumers harmed by unlawful trade practicesmay sue for damages and may be awarded statutory damages of $1,500 per violation. The case was filed on behalf of class member Christina Rector, who is represented by Drew LaFramboise and Veronica Nannis of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, and Nicole Fiorelli, Frank Bartela, Patrick Perotti and Shmuel Kleinman of Dworken & Bernstein.
“Shoppers rely on price information when making purchasing decisions and have virtually no ability to look across pricing patterns to see statutory violations,” said consumer fraud attorney Drew LaFramboise of Joseph Greenwald & Laake. “We want to ensure that the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act guards purchasers against these unfair and deceptive trade practices.”
To learn more about this latest class action against Walmart, click here to read more.
NBC Washington News interviewed JGL principals Drew LaFramboise and Brian Markovitz and residents of The Signature Club in Accokeek who have filed a class action related to ongoing flooding and sewage backups.
Today, a class action complaint was filed in US District Court for the District of Maryland by Joseph Greenwald & Laake attorneys Drew LaFramboise and Brian Markovitz. The case was filed on behalf of class members Erica Bell, Xana Colvin, Carlos Colvin and Kymm Watson who are residents of the Signature Club community in Accokeek, Prince George’s County, Maryland.
The complaint alleges that class members’ homes and properties have sustained significant damage from raw sewage backups and flooding. These events began in the summer of 2021 and continue through the present day, and are caused by various construction and design failures by the named defendants, Caruso Homes, Inc., Caruso Signature Club MGT, LLC, NVR, Inc. d/b/a Ryan Homes, Signature 2016 Residential, LLC, Signature Club Homeowners Association, Inc., Vika Maryland, LLC, Delmarva Site Development, Inc., and Airvac, Inc.
The class action alleges that the residents of this community have suffered financial damages and other harms due to the sewage system. The complaint alleges that because of the issues with the sewage system installed in the community, residents have been over-billed for utilities, been assessed fees and costs to repair and maintain the system, have experienced increased insurance premiums, and have suffered a devaluation of their homes and properties.
What is a Reduction in Force (RIF) versus a Layoff? First, it is important to understand that these are business terms, not legal terms, and that outside of some limited exceptions discussed below, there is no legal difference between a RIF and a layoff.
In business terminology, a RIF usually refers to a specific plan to either close down an employer’s worksite; close a department; or otherwise decide to not employee a specific job category. This can include because the employer is outsourcing a job function, switching to contractors, and/or no longer has a need for that line of work. A layoff is usually a process where the employer decides to terminate an employee, and the termination is not due to a specific reason to terminate that employee (such as due to poor performance or misconduct). Usually a layoff will happen to more than one employee at a time, but even a single employee can be subject to a layoff. Often a layoff will include a decision that a certain number of employees need to be laid off for business reasons, or that there will be a layoff of 10% of employees across the board. However, layoff and RIF are not legal terms, and what one employer refers to as a layoff, another employer might refer to as a RIF.
There are times when a RIF verses a layoff may be legal terms. The federal government has specific rules and regulations governing a RIF, and more information about them can be found in this Handbook (PDF) put out by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). State and local governments may have their own regulations, and sometimes union contracts and/or other employee contracts may specify different rules governing a RIF versus a layoff. Finally, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the “WARN Act”) is a federal law that requires most employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of planned closings and mass layoffs of employees. The details of the WARN Act can be found at 20 C.F.R. § 639.
One common misperception is that if an employer decides to conduct a RIF or a layoff, the employee cannot bring claims of discrimination. Sometimes this misperception is based on the belief that a RIF or a layoff impacts many employees, and therefore cannot be shown to be discrimination against once employee. While this is true in many instances, this is not true as a matter of law, and if you believe you were subject to a RIF and/or layoff for discriminatory reasons, you should consult with an employment attorney. First, the reason that a group of employees were subjected to the RIF/layoff may have been for discriminatory reasons. One example is where the decision to include a specific employee in the RIF/layoff is due to discrimination. For example, the decision to lay off 10% of the department may not be discriminatory, but the decision to include you among the 10% may have been due to discrimination. Another example is if the employer decides to target a specific division or job for a RIF for discriminatory reasons. For example, in the case Breen et. al. v. Chao, et. al., hundreds of Flight Service Controllers for the FAA brought an age discrimination case alleging that the FAA had subjected them to a RIF due to age discrimination, including that FAA officials had described them as “the aging workforce.” (As a full disclosure, I litigated this case, and it resulted in a settlement of $43.8 million, the highest settlement against the federal government in an age discrimination case in history).
When subjecting employees to a RIF and/or layoff, employers generally require employees to sign paperwork. It is important to review it thoroughly, and it is best to contact an employment lawyer if you have any questions.
The divorce and separation laws in Maryland have changed recently, reshaping options available to dissolve marriages. Let’s delve into the distinctions between limited divorce, legal separation, and an annulment.
Limited Divorce
Historically, Maryland provided couples with the choice between a limited divorce and an absolute divorce. A limited divorce allowed individuals to address crucial matters such as child custody, child support, alimony, and financial obligations while maintaining their marital status. This was particularly valuable for those lacking grounds for absolute divorce but needing financial relief and intervention from the court. Recent legal changes in Maryland eliminate the option of limited divorce for new cases raising questions about how the state’s trial and appellate courts will handle cases filed before October 1, 2023.
Legal Separation
Maryland law never formally recognized legal separation; a limited divorce was the closest thing to a legal separation. Despite this, couples can still create separation agreements in situations where reconciliation seems unlikely. These agreements, whether verbal or written, can serve as evidence if the couple later pursues divorce on grounds such as a six-month separation, irreconcilable differences, or mutual consent. Separation agreements address important issues such as child custody, financial support, health insurance, and property division while the spouses live apart. This is a contractual arrangement that can be modified or revoked, with legal consequences for violations.
Annulment
Annulment is a unique and rare legal action that declares a marriage null and void, as if it never existed. Individuals can file for an annulment in the county of residence or where the marriage ceremony took place. However, seeking an annulment is no simple task, as the grounds are challenging to prove. A marriage may be annulled if it is void or voidable.
Void Marriages — A marriage is considered void if, at the time of the ceremony, either party was legally married to someone else (bigamy) or if the parties are blood relatives (incest). Void marriages are always deemed invalid, and legal proceedings can be initiated by either party or a third party to declare the marriage void.
Voidable Marriages — A marriage is voidable if consent was obtained through abduction, fraud, duress, undue influence, or if either party lacked the mental capacity to fully comprehend and consent to the marriage contract (incapacity). Unlike void marriages, voidable marriages remain legally valid until a court declares them invalid, and only the victimized party has the right to challenge the marriage’s validity. If a couple continues to live together after the circumstances that made the marriage voidable cease to exist, the marriage cannot be annulled.
As Maryland’s divorce laws evolve, understanding the nuances of limited divorce, legal separation, and annulment is vital. Couples should carefully consider their circumstances and seek legal counsel to navigate the complexities and determine the most appropriate course of action for their situation.
