Author: JGL Law

Congratulations to all fourteen of JGL’s Best Lawyers® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch™ in America – chosen by a time-honored peer-review process.

Click to view the recipients (PDF)

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake has been representing clients in suburban Maryland and the District of Columbia for almost 50 years. With offices in Greenbelt and Rockville, Maryland, we have lawyers who focus their practices in diverse areas of the law, including employment and whistleblower actions, family law, estates and trusts, civil rights, business planning and commercial litigation, personal injury, medical and professional negligence.

In this episode, Debora Fajer-Smith and David Bulitt discuss the following issues and more:

1. Hollywood and Workers Compensation – Assault vs. Negligence
2. Protecting Teachers in Schools – Assault at random or Assault incidentally
3. Gig Economy (Uber, Lyft, Handymen, etc.) Employee vs. Independent contractors  

JGL LAW FOR YOU brings you up close and personal with our lawyers who will be discussing how to navigate the many legal processes,  developments in the law, other current events and how they may affect you.

Three officers with the Maryland State Police have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit over what they describe as widespread racial discrimination within the department.

The complaint alleges MSP routinely disciplines officers of color more harshly than white officers, denies promotions to officers of color and retaliates against those who speak up about their treatment.

MSP is already under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, which is probing whether the department’s hiring and promotion practices are racially discriminatory.

The new federal lawsuit proposes a class made up of officers of color who were disciplined, denied promotions or otherwise faced discrimination from October 2019 to the present day. A judge would have to approve the group before the lawsuit could move forward as a class action.

The 36-page complaint was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt. It claims that MSP maintains “centralized disciplinary policies and procedures that disparately treat officers of color” compared to their white colleagues on the force.

The plaintiffs are Byron Tribue and Matin Dunlap, Black men who are currently officers with MSP, and Analisse Diaz, a Black Puerto Rican woman who was terminated from MSP in 2019.

In a statement, MSP said the complaint is currently under legal review and the department cannot share information about the allegations in the lawsuit.

“The Maryland Department of State Police remains committed to providing the highest quality of law enforcement services to the people of Maryland, while ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of all employees,” the department said in the statement. “Significant actions have been taken and are continuing to address even the perception of racism or unfair treatment of any kind.”

The complaint alleges that Tribue was suspended for 301 days while he was investigated for leaving work one hour early to make up for attending a meeting on one of his days off. This was a common practice at MSP, according to the complaint, but Tribue, who was known for raising concerns about racial discrimination, was treated harshly over the timecard issue.

The drawn-out investigation and discipline process meant Tribue was ineligible for a promotion that year despite ranking well on the sergeant promotion list. A trial board ultimately issued a 10-day suspension for the infraction, according to the complaint.

When Tribue eventually received the sergeant promotion, he was assigned to the Rockville Barrack, which was a significant commute from his home, instead of the Forestville Barrack, where he was stationed.

The complaint also claims that MSP officials retaliated against Dunlap after he complained that a white corporal placed a banana on Dunlap’s work vehicle. The corporal was not disciplined and has been repeatedly promoted, according to the complaint.

After Dunlap complained, MSP reopened an investigation into a complaint stemming from a traffic stop, suspended him for three years and charged him criminally in the incident. The Baltimore Sun reported in 2019 that prosecutors dropped assault charges against Dunlap, who had been accused of striking a man with a baton during the stop.

Dunlap remains an officer with MSP but has been denied opportunities to work in specialized units, which benefit officers seeking promotions, the suit contends.
Diaz alleges other racist incidents in the complaint, including being told by a sergeant that he did not think it was a “big deal” to say the “n-word.” On another occasion, Diaz claims, she was told MSP should hire her as cleaning staff, in an apparent reference to her being Hispanic.

Diaz performed well as an officer, and her fluency in Spanish and other skills were useful to MSP’s Drug Enforcement Unit, according to the complaint, but she was passed over when she applied to join the specialized unit. A supervisor began retaliating against Diaz when she was chosen for a prestigious training program, the complaint claims, and wrote her a poor performance review.

MSP’s Internal Affairs office investigated Diaz for nearly 18 months and ultimately proposed terminating her over what the complaint describes as “low level mistakes.” The complaint does not detail what accusations led to Diaz’s termination.

Caucasian officers have not been similarly disciplined for more serious infractions, the complaint claims. Some white officers have failed to report for duty because they were under the influence of alcohol or got into vehicle crashes outside their assigned work areas while on duty, but were not charged with offenses, according to the complaint.

Other white officers engaged in excessive force or, in one case, left a gun in a convenience store, and were not terminated, the complaint claims.

The complaint also references previously reported incidents, including the use of a paper shooting target that depicts a cartoonish person of color at a gun range in Western Maryland and a commemorative coin that used the phrase “Make Waldorf Great Again” in reference to an anti-crime initiative.

According to the complaint, some other MSP employees have filed discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and will be added to the lawsuit after they receive notice of the right to sue from the agency.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Michal Shinnar, of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday.

In a statement, MSP said the complaint is currently under legal review and the department cannot share information about the allegations in the lawsuit.

“The Maryland Department of State Police remains committed to providing the highest quality of law enforcement services to the people of Maryland, while ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of all employees,” the department said in the statement. “Significant actions have been taken and are continuing to address even the perception of racism or unfair treatment of any kind.”

Title IX is a civil rights law focused on preventing educational discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on sex. Learn more.

Title IX states that:

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.“

This statute was part of the 1972 Education Amendments; it has now been just over 50 years since it was passed. However, many people are unaware of this key piece of federal law that still protects us today.

Getting to know Title IX (and your rights in general) can help you advocate for yourself when necessary. Read on to learn more about Title IX here and better understand the scenarios in which it takes effect.

If you’ve experienced sex-based discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in an educational setting, request a consultation with our Title IX abuse and discrimination team today.

What is the Purpose of Title IX?

Title IX has helped level the playing field in the educational world. A vast number of schools, colleges, and educational programs receive federal funding, and as such, are not permitted to discriminate in terms of admissions, scholarships, equipment provisions, and more.

Title IX also protects students against sexual harassment and assault. Everything from assault, to unwanted touching, to verbal harassment can impede students’ access to education and cause sex-based discrimination.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services clarifies that the “sex discrimination” Title IX protects against also includes pregnancy discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, and gender identity discrimination.

If your experience took place outside of an educational establishment, we can still help. Turn to our sexual assault and abuse litigation team, which supports survivors of rape, unwanted touching, childhood abuse, incest, and other unwanted sexual activity.

Our Title IX Team

Our Title IX team is here to help you seek justice if you have faced sex-based discrimination or harassment in an educational setting.

Our team has deep experience handling Title IX cases against federally-funded institutions, such as the Liberty University Sexual Assault Lawsuit, in which we represent “Jane Doe” in her suit against Liberty University. On April 27, 2021, the plaintiff was raped by another Liberty student, in an off-campus student housing complex. In April 2022, our team filed a Complaint to hold Liberty University accountable for failing to investigate the reported incident or take protective measures.

Learn more about this case and read news stories on the topic to stay informed.

You’re Protected by Title IX and Our Team

Our team is here to help people of all ages, sexes, and genders enforce their rights under Title IX.  If you or a loved one have suffered harassment and discrimination in an educational setting or by a federally-funded institution, please contact Greenwald and Laake, P.A. to schedule a free consultation, and see how we can help you find justice.

This is the second installment in a recap series that aims to summarize the reported cases coming out of the Maryland appellate courts: the Maryland Court of Appeals, and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. Detailed by Joseph, Greenwald & Laake associate, this document provides a synopsis of the Courts’ opinions.

In our first installment, we covered cases decided by the courts since January 2022. Read on as we progress through more recent cases tackled in Maryland.

(Note: The Maryland Court of Appeals’ attorney grievance and bar matters will not be covered.)

Paula v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

This case involves two Plaintiffs, both Baltimore City residents, who filed suit against the City of Baltimore over its alleged mismanagement of the Civilian Review Board (CRB). The CRB is a statutory agency that processes and investigates complaints about law enforcement officers from the public. The City filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the Plaintiffs did not have the standing to bring the suit. The Circuit Court agreed and dismissed the suit. This case, in essence, is about standing, the doctrine that ensures that a party filing a lawsuit has a real interest in the outcome and that an actual controversy or dispute has occurred that the court can resolve. By reviewing this case, we can see how standing operates in the legal system.

On appeal, the Plaintiffs argued that the dismissal of their suit was erroneous as they had standing to sue the City. First, they claimed that the alleged mismanagement of the CRB uniquely aggrieved them in comparison with other Baltimore City residents. Additionally, they argued that they had a right to a properly functioning CRB as stated by its establishing statute. This issue, they claim, could be vindicated through legal action. This is called normal standing. Second, they argued that they had taxpayer standing. This version of standing allows a taxpayer to sue the City if an illegal or unauthorized action by the City causes the taxpayer unique monetary loss or an increase in the taxes they owe. Lastly, they argued that Articles 9, 19, and/or 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights gave them standing to sue the City.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals rejected each of these arguments. First, the Court found that the Plaintiff’s interest was not personal. It was noted that the CRB exists not to redress specific instances of misconduct to the complainant but to maintain the integrity of the Baltimore City Police Department as a whole. Critically, the Court held that the Plaintiffs were never denied the right to file a complaint. Instead, the complaint was contested only after it was filed. Second, the Court held that the Plaintiff’s status as Baltimore City taxpayers did not give them standing because the alleged mismanagement of the CRB did not cause them specific monetary harm. Significantly, the Plaintiffs failed to connect the CRB’s alleged mismanagement to expenditures or inefficiencies that would have been avoided if the CRB was properly managed and sufficiently independent from the City’s control. Lastly, the Court held that the Plaintiffs did not have standing under Articles 9, 19, or 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

• Article 9 provides that only the General Assembly can “suspend Laws, or the execution of Laws.” The Plaintiffs never argued that the law establishing the CRB had been effectively suspended by the City. Instead, they only claimed that the City was violating the CRB statute. The violation of a law is not the same as its suspension.
• Article 19 provides access to the Courts. The Court held that the Plaintiffs were not denied access to the court system. The trial court held, and the Court of Special Appeals agreed, that there was simply no injury to the Plaintiffs specifically that the courts could redress.
• Articles 24 provides a right to due process of law. The Court found that the Plaintiffs were not deprived of any right without process. Only law enforcement officers who are subject to possible discipline from the CRB are entitled to due process protections under Article 24. This does not include those who file complaints with the CRB.

This case is best understood as an application of the principle that there is no right that can be vindicated in the judicial system which entitles a citizen to “good” governance unless the alleged “bad” governance affects them differently than it affects the rest of the public.

Playmark Inc. et al. v. Perret

This case involves James Perret, the Plaintiff, who was employed by AAA, Inc. In 2000, AAA agreed that if Perret continued to work for AAA in a managerial capacity from 2000 until 2015, AAA would pay Perrett $25,000 per year until 2025. By reviewing this case, the obligations of corporate successors will be illuminated.

In 2005, AAA was split up into two separate entities that continued to provide the same services. After this company shift, Perrett was still employed in a managerial capacity. In 2015, Perret started to receive the $25,000 payments. The payments ceased, however, when the owners of the AAA successor entities, who were previously married, got a divorce. This effectively split the two successor entities again—into Playmark and Pro Rec—so they could each maintain half of what they previously owned prior to the divorce. They, then, parted ways.

James Perrett filed suit against Playmark and Pro Rec, alleging that by failing to make the $25,000 annual payments, they had breached the contract agreed upon in 2000. He also alleged, both additionally and in the alternative, that the failure to make the annual payments violated the Maryland Wage Act, which prohibits the wrongful withholding of wages by employers upon termination. The trial court agreed with Perret by finding that Playmark and Pro Rec did breach the 2000 agreement. It was found that the two companies were liable for the annual payments due to Perret. The trial court, however, rejected Perret’s arguments under the Maryland Wage Act. Playmark and Pro Rec appealed the ruling on the breach of contract claim, and Perret cross-appealed the ruling on the dismissal of his Wage Act claim.

The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the breach of contract claim and held that Playmark and Pro-Rec were obligated to make the annual payments to Perret. This is because, ultimately, they were the successors of the initial corporation, AAA. Meaning, that they had explicitly agreed to assume the obligation to pay Perret. The Court included an illustration in its opinion that shows how AAA became two separate entities, which were then divided again into two more entities.

The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Perret’s Maryland Wage Act Claim. The effect of this, though the Court noted, is likely negligible as the damages under the contract action and the Maryland Wage Act are the same. The only difference is that, under the Maryland Wage Act, a plaintiff is entitled to three times the damages sought, attorney’s fees, and costs if they can demonstrate that the employer’s failure to pay the money owed was “not as a result of a bona fide dispute.” The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on Perret’s Maryland Wage Act claim.

This decision should stand as a reminder to businesses that unwanted corporate obligations do not disappear. Even a clever corporate restructuring designed to avoid successor liability by dividing assets in such a way that no successor acquires “substantially all” the assets of the former corporation, as was done here, will not avoid successor liability. Instead, if half of the assets of a company are transferred to two successor entities (or a third to three, or a fourth to four, etc.) each of the entities that together acquired the assets will be held liable for the obligations in proportion to the assets they acquired.

Beckwitt v. Maryland

This peculiar and tragic case involves Beckwitt, a paranoid millionaire fearing nuclear war. Beckwitt hired Askia Khafra, a young man whose company Beckwitt had invested in, to dig tunnels beneath his home in Montgomery County. The tunnels would become littered with trash and debris. Beckwitt provided power to the tunnels via a series of extension cords and power strips. Hours before a fire broke out in the tunnels, Khafra informed Beckwitt of a power failure. Khafra was killed in the fire.

A jury in Montgomery County convicted Beckwitt of involuntary manslaughter and depraved-heart murder. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the involuntary manslaughter conviction and reversed the conviction for depraved-heart murder. While Beckwitt demonstrated a “wanton and reckless” disregard for Khafra’s life, his conduct did not rise to the level of “extreme disregard for human life reasonably likely to cause death” that was needed to sustain the depraved-heart murder conviction. The Court of Special Appeals explained that hiring someone to dig tunnels underneath their home does not rise to the level of opprobrious conduct that a conviction for depraved-heart murder requires.

Beckwitt appealed the Court of Special Appeals’ affirmation of his manslaughter conviction and raised several arguments, some of which are not addressed here because they were not essential to the result of the case on appeal. The State appealed the reversal of the depraved-heart murder conviction.

First, he argued that under pre-1776 English statutes, which prohibited prosecution against someone in whose home an accidental fire started, the state could not hold him criminally responsible for the fire. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that Beckwitt’s argument did not implicate the trial court’s jurisdiction, and therefore could not be raised on appeal. After a well-researched and informative explanation of why the pre-1776 statutes were inapplicable, the Court wrote that even if the old English statutes were applicable in Maryland, the fire that killed Khafra was not accidental. Instead, Beckwitt was convicted because the conditions he created in his basement and the tunnels made it so that Khafra could not report and escape from a potentially life-threatening situation.

Beckwitt also argued that he could not be convicted for involuntary manslaughter based on gross negligence. Hiring Khafra to work in his home with hoarding conditions and power outages was not likely to cause harm to the person. Hoarding, he argues, is not inherently dangerous conduct. His conduct, therefore, was not a “wanton and reckless disregard for human life” necessary to support the conviction for involuntary manslaughter. The Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Beckwitt’s gross negligence caused Khafra’s death. The Court of Appeals held that “on multiple levels, Beckwitt’s conduct constituted a departure from the conduct that a reasonable person would have engaged in under similar circumstances. No reasonable person would have required Khafra to live and work in a basement with a faulty supply of electricity for light and airflow and without a reliable way for Khafra to contact him.  No reasonable person would have maintained the abhorrent conditions that existed in the basement with debris and trash blocking Khafra’s route out in the event of an emergency.  And no reasonable person would have reacted as casually as Beckwitt did on the day of the fire upon learning of the two power outages in the basement.” The Court also wrote that Beckwitt, as Khafra’s employer under Maryland law, had a legal duty to provide safe working conditions and a jury could have potentially convicted him of involuntary manslaughter on that basis also.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals’ reversal of the depraved-heart murder conviction. While Beckwitt acted strangely, negligently, and recklessly, he did not act with the “extreme indifference” necessary for depraved-heart murder.

After the Court’s ruling was issued in January, Beckwitt was resentenced to five years in prison, much of which he has already served.

If you’re looking into an employment law issue, you may have heard of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), and the MCCR (Maryland Commission on Civil Rights). They have similar goals, but apply differently, and differ in terms of their proceedings. Here, we explore what makes them unique, and the impact they have on employees.

What is the EEOC?

EEOC stands for “Equal Employment Opportunity Commission”. The EEOC is an agency that enforces federal laws to protect employees and job applications from harassment and discrimination at work.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was founded on the 2^nd July, 1965, with the goal of enforcing Title VII. Subsequently, in the 1990, the EEOC also enforced the Americans With Disabilities Act for individuals with disabilities.  All companies with 15 or more employees must adhere to the rules of the EEOC. There are many examples of how this fits into everyday life at work – from preventing discrimination in the hiring process, to ensuring equal training opportunities.

The EEOC protects against discrimination based on:

• Race, color, and national origin
• Religion
• Sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy)
• Age (40+ years)
• Disability
• Genetic information

What is the MCCR?

MCCR stands for Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. The MCCR explains its goal as follows:

It is the mission of the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights to ensure opportunity for all through the enforcement of Maryland’s laws against discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and state contracts… Our vision is to have a State that is free from any trace of unlawful discrimination.

In terms of employment, the MCCR has a similar goal to the EEOC but on a state level; the MCCR protects workers in Maryland from harassment, retaliation, discrimination, and more.

When Do I Need a Labor and Employment Attorney?

Both the EEOC and MCCR have their own individual and complex processes. If you are getting ready to engage with either authority, it is wise to thoroughly understand the filing process and needs for EEOC and MCCR claims.

Representation by a reputable labor and employment attorney is the best way to navigate the process.

Choose Strategic and Aggressive Representation that Protects Your Rights

The labor and employment attorneys at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake are here to represent you. We believe in a fairer future, with teams of experts working on job discrimination cases like yours.

From filing the charge of discrimination to preparing you for mediation and representing you, we can give your case the best possible chance of success.

Contact Joseph, Greenwald & Laake today, for a free consultation with our labor and employment law experts.

We are delighted to congratulate 13 of our attorneys for being selected by their peers for inclusion in the 29th Edition of The Best Lawyers in America:

Andrew E. Greenwald

• Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs
• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Burt Kahn

• Medical Malpractice Law – Plaintiffs
• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

David Bulitt

• Family Law Mediation
• Collaborative Law: Family Law
• Family Law

Debora Fajer-Smith

• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Jay P. Holland

• Employment Law – Individuals

Jeffrey Hannon

• Family Law

Jeffrey N. Greenblatt

• Family Law

Patrick W. Dragga

• Family Law

Reza Golesorkhi

• Family Law

Stephen A. Friedman

• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Steven M. Pavsner

• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Timothy Maloney

• Appellate Practice
• Employment Law – Management

Timothy P. O’Brien

• Trusts and Estates

All lawyers named to The Best Lawyers in America© publication were recognized by their peers in the legal industry for their professional excellence in 146 practice areas. For the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America, 8.3 million votes were analyzed, which resulted in the inclusion of more than 62,000 lawyers, or approximately 5% of lawyers in private practice in the United States.

The selection of these lawyers in this prestigious peer-reviewed publication continues to demonstrate the quality of the legal services that we provide at JGL and our unswerving dedication to client service.

GREENBELT, Md., August 16, 2022 – Yesterday Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., filed a Complaint (Cosmann v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (PDF)) to hold national consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton (NYSE: BAH) accountable for refusing to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s disability, actively preventing her from seeking additional billable client projects, and then ultimately terminating her employment as a result. The lawsuit seeks relief for unlawful disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended (“ADA”) and the Virginia Values Act (“VVA”).

The Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff Deirdre N. Cosmann alleged in the Complaint that she was a long-time, high-performing employee of Defendant Booz Allen Hamilton, all until she encountered a new manager who did not want to accommodate her disability.  Ms. Cosmann was diagnosed with migraines and required telework approximately six to eight days a month for her disability. Booz Allen granted this accommodation back in 2013, but in the Complaint, Ms. Cosmann alleges that when she moved on to a new project in June 2019 her new “Job Manager” refused to abide by the existing accommodation, despite Ms. Cosmann’s disability needs and the fact that other employees on the project teleworked. Ms. Cosmann alleges in the Complaint that the Job Manager intentionally scrutinized her work, berated her in front of her client and colleagues, and demanded Ms. Cosmann show detailed activity logs of her time spent teleworking, a requirement not extended to any other teleworking employee. According to the Complaint, Ms. Cosmann continued to request accommodations for her disability and escalated the issue with official complaints to Booz Allen, but the company did not intervene. Ms. Cosmann alleges that Booz Allen removed her from her project and then refused to consider her for other jobs due to her need for telework. 

According to Ms. Cosmann as detailed in the Complaint, when Booz Allen switched to full-time telework due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, Booz Allen still did not accommodate, and denied Ms. Cosmann the telework benefits it provided to all other employees. Booz Allen allegedly insisted that Ms. Cosmann (and only Ms. Cosmann) could not work at Booz Allen jobs due to her need to telework, and unceremoniously terminated her in the midst of the pandemic.

As outlined in the Complaint, filed in federal court, Booz Allen’s actions were in direct violation of the ADA. Additionally, Booz Allen blatantly disregarded its commitment to The Federal Procurement Policy, which “permit[s] telecommuting by employees of Federal Government contractors in the performance of contracts entered into with executive agencies,” and Booz Allen’s obligations under the Federal Acquisition Regulations, which state that a federal “agency shall generally not discourage a contractor from allowing its employees to telecommute in the performance of Government contracts.” Booz Allen also did not abide by its Contract and Preliminary Work Statement with the federal government (Ms. Cosmann’s client), which did not prohibit telework.

“Booz Allen repeated denial of Ms. Cosmann’s requests for reasonable accommodations for her disability is nothing short of a blatant refusal to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws. Booz Allen failed Ms. Cosmann at every stage, from repeatedly denying her accommodations, allowing her Job Manager to retaliate against her, removing her from her project just two weeks after she finally got a formal reasonable accommodation in place, refusing to consider her for jobs because she needed episodic telework, and then terminating her due to her disability,” said Michal Shinnar, Senior Counsel at Joseph Greenwald & Laake, PA, and co-counsel for Ms. Cosmann. “Booz Allen should have had systems in place to stop all of this misconduct and ensure its employee received equal treatment and accommodations. But, instead, Booz Allen at all levels condoned these blatant violations of the ADA. We believe a jury will agree that Booz Allen acted unlawfully and will award Ms. Cosmann with the proper damages.”

“Booz Allen denied Ms. Cosmann the telework benefits it gave to other employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, removed her from a major contract despite protests from the client, refused to give her new work, and terminated her in early 2020 even when Booz Allen had instituted a company-wide policy to not lay off employees until July 2020,” said Lenore Garon of the Law Office of Lenore Garon, PLLC, and co-counsel for the Plaintiff. “No employee should have been fired due to their need to occasionally telework for a disability at a time when everyone in the company was teleworking due to COVID-19. It is evident that Booz Allen Hamilton actively penalized and targeted Ms. Cosmann for her disability which is a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

To learn more about Joseph, Greenwald & Laake’s Labor and Employment practice, click here.

Media Contact: Lauren Smith, MBA | media@jgllaw.com | (202) 656-1774

####

About Joseph, Greenwald & Laake

Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., is one of the most trusted law firms serving Washington, DC, and the suburban Maryland area. For more than 50 years, our law firm has represented a variety of clients, including individuals, small businesses and multimillion-dollar corporations. From simple to complex legal needs, our law firm is prepared to deliver strategic solutions with high standards. Call or e-mail us at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. to schedule a consultation with an experienced attorney. We offer reliable counsel on how best to proceed and what your rights and responsibilities are.

This is the first in a series of recaps on the reported cases coming out of the Maryland appellate courts: the Maryland Court of Appeals, and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. This post provides a synopsis of the Courts’ opinions, as detailed by Joseph, Greenwald & Laake associate.

Here, we begin with recaps and explanations of the cases decided by the courts in January 2022.

(Note: The Maryland Court of Appeals’ attorney grievance and bar matters will not be covered.)

Gateway Terry, LLC v. Prince George’s County, et al.

In this case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals was asked whether a California limited liability company, owned by the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA), was exempt from paying certain state and county taxes, in connection with the purchase of real estate for nearly $187 million.

The LLC’s argument was based on Maryland and Prince George’s County laws that exempt “the State,” “an agency of the State,” or “a political subdivision” in or of “the State,” from paying transfer taxes and taxes associated with the recording of deeds to real property.

The case turned on whether “the State” referred only to Maryland, or whether it also referred to the other 49 states and the “agencies and political subdivisions” of those states. The Court held that “the State” as used in the relevant state and county laws here, could refer only to the State of Maryland. The LLC also argued that the statutes were discriminatory because they were not being applied to Maryland and other States equally. The Court rejected this argument, too.

The Court did not even address whether the LLC here, owned by LACERA, was a “political subdivision” of California, because the answer to that question would not change the Court’s conclusion that “the State,” referred only to Maryland.

In total, Maryland and Prince George’s County collected slightly more than $4.5 million in taxes in connection with the LLC’s acquisition of real property.

Williams v. eWrit Filings, LLC

The property management company for an apartment building hired eWrit Filings to bring several failure to pay rent (FTPR) actions against Williams, a tenant of the building, who was late on rent payments throughout 2017 and 2018.

In response, Williams filed a lawsuit against eWrit on the theory that eWrit was not a licensed debt collector in Maryland, and thus illegally engaged in debt collection by filing the FTPR actions. The Circuit Court agreed with eWrit’s argument that filing FTPR actions were not debt collection activity, and granted eWrits motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The question presented on appeal was whether one entity filing FTPR actions on behalf of another entity was a debt collection activity, and therefore had to be carried out by a state-licensed debt collector.

The Court held that the filing of the FTPR actions was a debt collection activity, because FTPR actions seek repossession of the leased premises and a monetary judgment, and are therefore the collection of a “consumer claim,” under Maryland law. Under Maryland law, the collection of any consumer debt is a debt collection activity. Thus, it followed, eWrit had to be licensed to file these FTPR actions. The Court also found that entities like eWrit that attempt to recover unpaid rents on behalf of landlords are not exempted from the licensure requirements, unlike licensed real estate brokers or their agents, which are exempt.

Tenants should be aware of this decision. If an FTPR action is filed against a tenant, the tenant should endeavor to determine whether the entity filing the action is a licensed debt collector. Landlords should only hire agencies to file FTPR actions that are licensed debt collectors. Via NMLS Consumer Access, tenants are able to search the name of any entity that files an FTPR action, to see if they are licensed to do so. Landlords should also utilize this resource, to avoid hiring an unlicensed entity.

Wilkins v. State

In 2016, Wilkins alleged in post-conviction proceedings that he was denied his right of allocution at his initial sentencing hearing. The allocution is the portion of the sentencing hearing at which the defendant, either personally or through counsel, can make a statement and present information in mitigation of punishment. In 2019, the state agreed with Watkins and the matter was set for resentencing.

At the re-sentencing hearing in 2021, the prosecutor presented the facts of the case and argued that the original sentence was fair, and asked that the Court impose the same sentence. The defense conceded that the prosecutor’s presentation of the facts was accurate, then presented mitigation evidence, called a social worker to present mitigation testimony, and then Wilkins himself expressed remorse for his involvement in the killing, for which he was originally convicted.

On appeal, Wilkins presented three arguments. He argued first that the allocution he was provided was insufficient because the judge during the resentencing was unfamiliar with the case. Second, he argued that the resentencing court erred by failing to state its reasons for the sentence imposed on the record. Lastly, he argued that the resentencing court abused its discretion in sentencing him, because the resentencing judge was unfamiliar with the record of the case prior to the resentencing hearing.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals rejected each of Wilkins’ arguments, and affirmed the resentencing.

The most interesting portion of the Court’s opinion was its discussion about the duty of replacement judges. The replacement here was under Rule 4-361(a) because it occurred after the jury’s verdict. Rule 4-361(a) only requires the replacement judge to satisfy themselves that they can properly perform their duties. Rule 4-361(b) governs the replacement of a judge during a trial, and demands substantially more. There, the replacement judge must “certify” that they have become familiar with the record of the trial. This, however, was not formally part of the Court’s opinion, because Wilkins failed to preserve the issue of the trial judge’s familiarity with the case by raising the issue during the resentencing hearing.

Reyes v. State

In 2003, Jeanette Reyes pleaded guilty to a charge of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. At the time, Ms. Reyes’ attorney advised her that the plea deal would have no immigration consequences, and she pleaded guilty based on that knowledge. When she pleaded guilty, she was also incorrectly informed that the advisory sentence she would receive would be between probation and 12 months imprisonment and that the maximum she faced was five years. During the sentencing, this error was realized, and the applicable range was six months to three years imprisonment. The maximum sentence she faced was 20 years. The error was made because the sentencing range was initially calculated as if Ms. Reyes was in possession of marijuana, and not cocaine.

When Ms. Reyes applied for U.S. citizenship in 2019, she was informed by U.S. Customs and Immigration Services that her 2003 conviction was an aggravated felony under federal law, and that she was therefore ineligible to ever become a U.S. citizen.

Ms. Reyes then filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which is a way of asking a court to correct a factual or legal error that affects the validity of the conviction. Ms. Reyes’ theory was that her 2003 guilty plea was made in violation of Maryland Rule 2-242(c), which requires a criminal defendant to understand the consequences of a guilty plea.

The trial court denied Ms. Reyes’ petition for coram nobis relief, based on a case called Coleman v. State. In Coleman, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the denial of coram nobis relief because (1) the sentence Coleman received was well below the statutory maximum, (2) Coleman failed to directly appeal the sentence, and (3) and Coleman had waited 12 years since conviction and her coram nobis petition. The trial court found that the same circumstances in Coleman were present here, and denied Ms. Reyes relief. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals disagreed and found that the facts were sufficiently different to merit a different result.

The Court of Special Appeals also found that the critical inquiry is not the circumstances of when coram nobis relief was sought, whether there was a direct appeal, or whether the sentence was below the statutory maximum. Instead, the dispositive inquiry is whether a criminal defendant had actual knowledge of the maximum sentence they faced. The factors identified in Coleman were relevant, but not dispositive. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals also held that the fact a defendant knew of the maximum sentence at the sentencing hearing has no bearing on whether they had that knowledge when they pleaded guilty.

Linton v. Access Funding LLC

The Plaintiffs here are approximately 100 persons who voluntarily signed agreements to sell their structured settlements from lead paint exposure claims to Access Funding, in exchange for lump sum payments. The suit alleged negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy. The agreements with Access Funding contained an arbitration clause. On that basis, Access Funding filed a petition to compel arbitration.

Under the Maryland Structured Settlement Protection Act, a structured settlement transfer must be approved by a court, and the court must find that the transferor received independent professional advice as to the legal and financial implications of the transfer agreement. The means by which Access Funding secured court approval is central to the case. After the Plaintiffs signed these agreements with Access Funding, Access Funding placed them in touch with an attorney, Charles E. Smith, who signed letters indicating that he had explained to all of the Plaintiffs the legal and financial implications of the transfer and the agreement they had signed. These letters were then submitted to the court by Access so the transfers could be approved. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, Charles E. Smith was affiliated with and received payment from Access, and thus did not provide “independent professional advice” as required by the Maryland Structured Settlement Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Access used Mr. Smith to specifically prevent them from fully understanding and appreciating the transfer agreement’s binding arbitration clause.

The Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted Access Funding’s petition to compel arbitration, but did so without specifically addressing the validity, and therefore the existence of the arbitration clause. In essence, the court presumed the validity of the agreement without a real inquiry. Generally, arbitration agreements are presumed to be valid because they are matters of contract.

This was an error, as Judge Nazarian explained for the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in a superb written opinion. The sale of structured settlements, the Court said, are not simply arms-length contractual agreements. Maryland law requires that a court approve the sale of structured settlements. And a court can only do so, under the Maryland Structured Settlement Protection Act, if it finds that the party selling their structured settlement in exchange for a lump sum cash payment received “independent” professional advice. And here, the courts ratification of the transfer agreements was, at least allegedly, fraudulently obtained because the transferors did not receive independent professional advice, as required.

The Court of Special Appeals reversed and directed the Circuit Court to inquire as to the validity of the arbitration agreement, given the circumstances in which it was obtained. Access Funding appealed the decision, and the Court of Special Appeals will consider the case this coming term.

GREENBELT, MD., August 1, 2022 – Joseph Greenwald & Laake P.A. is pleased to announce that Reed Spellman and Valerie Grove have been elevated to Partner status.

“The firm is thrilled to add them both to our Board as Partners. They are incredibly bright and unwavering advocates for their clients.” said Paul Riekhof, Managing Director. “It is extremely well-deserved, and we look forward to their continued success at JGL.”

Reed counsels individuals and families in a wide range of estate planning and post-mortem planning issues, including anything from a simple will to advanced tax planning, as well as probate administration, trust administration, and estate tax filings and issues.

Ms. Grove concentrates her practice in the representation of injured victims of medical malpractice and has more than 20 years of experience in medical negligence cases.

About Joseph Greenwald & Laake

For more than 50 years, Joseph Greenwald & Laake has worked with individuals and businesses in Maryland and the District of Columbia, taking on the most complex of legal issues with sophisticated counsel and a personal touch. JGL serves clients in virtually all areas of the law.

Represented a father in a custody battle played out in the media where the client’s ex-wife was dating a prominent sports figure. The ex-wife was denying visitation with the child in Maryland. The court was successfully persuaded after an eight-day trial to modify the custody order to 50/50 custody and a fixed schedule that the father had sought for years. The cross-examination of the ex-wife and her financial issues ultimately led to federal indictments by the Internal Revenue Service in U.S. District Court for tax fraud and tax evasion.