Author: JGL Law

In an article published on February 4, 2025, in HR.com’s HR Legal & Compliance Excellence magazine, Brian Markovitz and Deborah Jaffe explain what Trump’s labor and employment picks could mean for employees.

The attorneys discuss the nomination of Lori Chavez-DeRemer to lead the U.S. Department of Labor, a more moderate choice than expected. The Trump administration has named Marvin Kaplan as the chairman of the National Labor Relations Board and terminated its general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo. As for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the president has announced he is appointing Andrea Lucas as its acting chair and is similarly expected to terminate the current general counsel.

While not all of the policy orders Trump has made are expected to last, it’s evident the new administration has a clear agenda moving forward, the attorneys wrote.

“Despite potential legal challenges ahead, with a 53-47 Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, President Trump’s nominees are expected to encounter little resistance during the confirmation process,” Markovitz and Jaffe explained, “situating the Trump administration to push forward with its expectedly pro-business agenda.”

Continue reading “EEOC, NLRB, And DOL: Who’s In Charge?” on the HR.com website.

JGL President, Paul Riekhof, announced that Christopher Castellano and Jonathan Stepanuk have been named Principals of the firm.

Christopher received his JD from the University of Baltimore School of Law and primarily focuses his practice on uncontested and contested family law matters, including pre/post nuptial agreements, separation agreements, divorce, marital property division, business valuations, child custody/visitation, spousal and child support, and modifications.

Jonathan received his JD from the University of Baltimore School of Law and focuses his practice on family law including complex financial disputes such as alimony, the division of business and investment assets, and custody.

If and when to voluntarily retire or leave a job is a personal and professional choice. BUT if you are considering voluntarily leaving any job due to the promise of getting pay or other benefits, you want to be sure that you know with specificity what those promises are, and that the promises are enforceable.

This is exactly why federal employees considering taking the new deferred resignation program should be fully aware of what is actually being offered, and the risks they take by accepting this option so that they can make an appropriate and informed decision.

What the Program Promises

Under the deferred resignation program offered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), federal employees can choose to resign by February 6, 2025, and if they do, OPM promises that in exchange

“[Y]ou will retain all pay and benefits regardless of your daily workload and will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025 (or earlier if you choose to accelerate your resignation for any reason).”

This “offer” was sent to all federal employees on January 28, 2025. The full terms are laid out here.

The Risks and Uncertainties of the Program’s Promises

There is no guarantee that if you take this option, you will get any financial benefit and/or changes to your working conditions other than telework, from now until you resign on September 30, 2025. However, the wording from OPM may cause some people to assume otherwise.

OPM says that federal employees will get all pay and benefits “regardless of your daily workload” which seems to imply that OPM is offering a significantly reduced workload if you take the offer, or even that you will get paid while not having to work at all (akin to administrative leave). However, employees should be wary of relying on this proposed benefit. There is no basis for federal agencies to allow people to do little to no work for full pay in exchange for a resignation. There are specific times where a federal agency can place someone on administrative leave without pay, and this is just not one of them. Congress could choose to fund this, but has not done so to date.

Moreover, the language in the form resignation letter that employees are being asked to submit to “accept” the offer leaves a lot of room for the government to fail to, or refuse to, uphold its end of the bargain, or even to argue that your acceptance of this offer does not form the basis for a contract like a severance agreement would. The form acceptance letter states:

“I am certain of my decision to resign and my choice to resign is fully voluntary. I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.”

Thus, when you “accept” this offer you are actually submitting a voluntary resignation as of September 30, 2025. Even if you are placed on paid administrative leave following your voluntary resignation, there is no guarantee that the government will not eliminate your position, terminate you, reschedule your position, or subject you to a Reduction in Force in the interim period. If the government does this, it may argue that it does not need to continue to pay you until your September 30, 2025 “voluntary” resignation date.

If you are asked to sign a separation agreement as part of acceptance of this offer, that could further impact your rights, as it is likely that you would waive future claims against the government resulting from your resignation.

You May Not Be Able To Withdraw Your Resignation

Once you resign, there is no guarantee that the agency that you work for will allow you to withdraw your resignation. Under the

An agency may permit an employee to withdraw his resignation at any time before it has become effective. An agency may decline a request to withdraw a resignation before its effective date only when the agency has a valid reason and explains that reason to the employee. A valid reason includes, but is not limited to, administrative disruption or the hiring or commitment to hire a replacement. Avoidance of adverse action proceedings is not a valid reason.

See 5 C.F.R. § 715.202. In short, Agencies have broad discretion to decide if you have a “valid reason” for withdrawing your resignation, and you should proceed with appropriate caution.

What if I do not want to resign, but I require a telework accommodation for my disability?

The deferred resignation program opens by outlining the “four pillars” around which the new administration intends to reform the federal government, one of which is ending remote work. One of the stated benefits offered in the deferred resignation program is being “exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025.” The applicable in-person work requirements include the President’s “Return To In-Person Work” memorandum, and OPM’s Memorandum re: Guidance on Presidential Memorandum Return to In-Person Work.

If you are considering retiring because you need telework due to a disability, and you are concerned that such telework will be canceled, nothing in these changes to telework policies changes employees’ rights to reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act prohibit discrimination against federal employees because of their disability. Employees with qualifying disabilities are entitled to “reasonable accommodations” that will allow them to perform the essential functions of their job, so long as it does not cause an “undue hardship” to the agency. Retaliation against employees for seeking a reasonable accommodation, or protesting unlawful conduct, is also prohibited.

Neither the President, OPM, nor the federal agency you work for can overrule the legal requirements to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. In fact, moreover, the “Return To In-Person Work” memorandum states that “the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary,” and the OPM Memorandum re: Guidance on Presidential Memorandum Return to In-Person Work explicitly makes exceptions for disability accommodations.

If you had your telework rescinded or denied, or have questions about how the changes in telework policy impact your reasonable accommodation, you should consult with an employment lawyer to determine your options.

During the inaugural address, President Trump claimed there was a federal mandate that would prohibit Americans from buying gasoline-powered cars. The truth is “there never has been a federal rule requiring the purchase of EVs.”

Signed on January 20, 2025: UNLEASHING AMERICAN ENERGY (read the full text here).

While the new order appears to provide consumers with more choices, it will likely face long legal battles and may also require congressional legislation to roll back some of what the president would like eliminated. But even if the President succeeds in this mission, electric vehicles will continue to be manufactured and sold in the United States.

The face of automobile manufacturing has changed. Ford Model T may have been the first engine made, but it will not be the last, and automobile and truck manufacturing is now a global business. Americans stand tall for technological advances; however, the United States is no longer the largest auto producing country in the world. China’s clear focus on the manufacture of electric vehicles has taken it to the point of global domination. China built 50 million vehicles in 2024 and nearly one-third of those were EVs or plug-in hybrids.

Yes, many American automobile manufacturers and some foreign manufacturers as well, did announce late last year that new manufacturing and sales would shift slightly from the heavily promoted electric and electric hybrid strategies. Volkswagen, Ford, and General Motors have a better chance of adapting as they currently produce both electric and gasoline-powered engines. However, in the days before Trump took office, Rivian finalized a $6.6 billion manufacturing facility to fund a new facility in Atlanta Georgia. Undoubtedly, there will be a drop in EV sales in the next 3-4 years, but legacy manufacturers will not walk away from EVs. Even if the short-term forecast will be some losses, long-term projections predict a swing to profits similar to Tesla when it began to ramp up production. Electric vehicles have fewer moving parts and can be more profitable to build than the complex engines and transmissions of a gasoline-powered car. Market reports showed Tesla’s profit margins on cars at nearly 16% during the first quarters of 2024, nearly double that of General Motors.

For everyday drivers like us what does all of this mean?

Probably the biggest hit will be the elimination of the $7,500 tax credit available to eligible buyers of electric vehicles. This tax benefit is a big incentive in making a new or used EV more affordable and desirable in the marketplace. Strangely enough, Elon Musk has lobbied for the removal of the tax credit. Due to Tesla’s company size and market dominance, this company may receive a benefit from a decrease in competition as other manufacturers decide to move away from electric vehicles. Some industry analysts believe the demand for electric vehicles will fall between 15% and 20% over the next 3 to 4 years if the tax credit is revoked.

The historic 2022 Transportation bill also provided federal support for vehicle-charging stations and low-interest loans for traditional automakers building new plants to build EVs and the batteries they need. This freeze on electric vehicle infrastructure will undoubtedly delay in implementation of the nationwide electric vehicle infrastructure planned by our former President, but automakers are playing the long-term game. The American appetite for electric vehicles will continue to grow and auto manufacturers are betting the demand for electric vehicles will be stronger than the demand for gasoline-powered cars.

Within the design houses of Michigan, dozens of models of EVs are being formed and are in some stage of production, a process that can be much longer than a single presidential term.

For those of you who own EVs or EV hybrids the resale market may look bleak for the next few years, but the markets will change. And for those of you who are interested in purchasing an EV or EV hybrid, the next few years could be an excellent time to visit your local dealership. The prices may be falling.

JGL attorneys Drew LaFramboise and Veronica Nannis filed a class action complaint against the Psychiatric Institute of Washington (PIW), Health Services, Inc. (UHS), and their subsidiaries.

The class action alleges that, for years, PIW and UHS have systematically violated the rights of their patients, subjected patients to unsafe and unsanitary conditions, withheld necessary treatment and therapy, and involuntary hospitalized patients under false pretenses and in violation of state and federal law. The Plaintiff and class are represented by JGL Principals Veronica Nannis and Drew LaFramboise, JGL Of Counsel Lacey McMullan, and attorneys from Keilty Bonadio.

Click to read the Complaint and Jury Demand (PDF)

In an article published in HR Executive on January 30, 2025, Brian Markovitz and Deborah Jaffe discuss whether President Trump’s labor policies will bring major changes for human resources professionals and alter the landscape of worker protections and business regulations.

Markovitz and Jaffe examine Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, and provide insight into what the selection says about the new administration’s labor policies. They also discuss the appointment of Marvin E. Kaplan as chairman of the NLRB and the expected termination of current NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo and what this may mean for union-friendly policies enacted during the Biden Administration.

Continue reading “Will Trump’s labor policies radically shift the landscape for HR?” in HR Executive.

When faced with the prospect of divorce, many couples in Maryland understand that selling their home will be part of the process. Selling a home in connection with a divorce involves several legal and emotional factors you will need to navigate. This is why it is important to understand key considerations and potential implications associated with selling your home in connection with a divorce.

Understanding Maryland’s Property Division Laws

In Maryland, property division during a divorce is governed by the concept of “equitable distribution.” This means that the court aims to divide marital property fairly, though not necessarily equally. When it comes to the family home, the court will consider various factors, including, but not limited to:

• Ownership of the Property: to whom the house is titled. Most people own a house together as “tenants by the entireties,” but different arrangements are possible, so it is important to understand the ownership of your home.
• Contribution Toward the Acquisition of the Property: such as financial contributions and non-financial contributions toward acquiring the home. This is relevant if the home was acquired by one spouse prior to marriage and can impact whether a premarital home has a marital value component.

Understanding the Value of Your Home

Most people finance their home with a mortgage and some even have a home equity line of credit. The fair market value of your home, less debt, is considered a basic net value of your home. A number then can be used when considering a marital property division for the purposes of a divorce.

Agreements Between the Parties

While not particularly common, some people do have prenuptial or postnuptial agreements in place. These types of agreements often have clauses regarding how a home is divided in the event of a divorce. Understanding your pre or postnuptial agreement is essential when determining how your home will be divided in the event of a divorce.

Custody

The custody and parenting time arrangement can be a significant aspect of how the home is resolved pending a divorce. If there is no agreement between the parties as to custody, then you are likely to have complex issues to deal with, including, but not limited to, determining who primarily resides in the home and for how long, the primary residence of the children, and the cost of carrying the home. The question of custody is likely to be one of the most central considerations when resolving the question of a home in a divorce.

Can You and Your Spouse Agree to Sell Your Home Prior to Divorce?

Of course. In fact, as one of the largest assets in a marriage, amicably resolving how to deal with the marital home is one of the best ways toward resolving your case as a whole. There are additional advantages as well:

• Liquidity: Converting the marital home into cash can provide much-needed liquidity for both parties, allowing for more options when determining a clean division of the remaining assets.
• Emotional Separation: Selling the marital home can facilitate emotional detachment from the marriage, as it often serves as a powerful reminder of the relationship.
• Avoiding Joint Ownership: Making joint decisions about a home’s maintenance and eventual sale can be challenging in the midst of a divorce, and selling resolves these questions.

What Should You Consider Before Listing Your Home?

• Consult with a Legal Professional: Discuss your plans with an experienced family law attorney to understand your rights and the potential outcomes, particularly if you believe custody will be an issue.
• Evaluate the Market: Work with a real estate agent to understand the current market conditions and the potential value of your home.
• Alternative Options: Explore other options, such as buying out your spouse’s share of the home (if possible) or keeping it and agreeing on a fair compensation to your spouse.
• Prepare for Emotional Challenges: Selling your home in connection with a divorce can be emotionally taxing as it represents the end of a significant chapter in your life. Seek support from family, friends, or professionals.
• Document Everything: Keep records of all financial transactions and decisions related to the sale to avoid disputes later.

Selling your home in anticipation of a divorce can be a complex process, legally and emotionally. By understanding Maryland’s property division laws, exploring all options, and seeking professional guidance, you can make informed decisions that will help you move forward with confidence. Remember, the goal is to reach a fair and equitable resolution that allows both parties to start their new chapters on solid ground.

If you’re considering this step, don’t hesitate to reach out to an experienced Maryland family lawyer for personalized advice tailored to your unique situation.

In an article published in The Bump on January 28, 2025, Erika Jacobsen White was quoted regarding pregnant workers and coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

The FMLA provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for specific family or medical reasons – but only if you qualify. White explains, “In order to qualify, the worker must be employed at a location where the employer has at least 50 employees employed within a 75-mile radius. For remote workers, this means that they’re covered if they report to and/or receive assignments from an office with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius.”

For employees who are not looking to take leave but need accommodations to perform their job, White highlights the PWFA, “which requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide ‘reasonable accommodations’ to employees or job applicants with pregnancy-related conditions.” White states “reasonable accommodations” can include time off, job restructuring, temporary reassignment, time off for medical appointments, adjustments to work stations (such as providing seating options), additional breaks or telework.

Read the full article “When to Stop Working During Pregnancy” on The Bump’s website.

JGL is a Premier Sponsor of the Federal Bar Association’s 2025 Qui Tam Conference “Hard-Won Wisdom: FCA Pitfalls and Best Practices,” which will take place in Washington, D.C. on February 20 and 21.

Sessions will dive into the practical side of False Claims Act investigations and litigation, with deeply experienced litigators representing a variety of viewpoints —defense, relator, government, and more—sharing their guidance in strategic areas of FCA practice. The first day of the conference will highlight some of the legal areas the U.S. Department of Justice has identified as priorities for enforcement. The second day will focus on the nitty-gritty questions facing any FCA practitioner. 

JGL attorneys Caralea Grant, Virginia (Gia) Grimm, Jay Holland, Drew LaFramboise, Brian Markovitz, Veronica Nannis and Erika Jacobsen White will attend.

Learn more about the conference.

There is a lot of confusion about what the recent Executive Order revoking Executive Order 11246 means. Some coverage even makes it seem that revoking Executive Order 11246 makes it legal for federal contractors to discriminate against their employees. This is not true.

Executive Order 11246 covers discrimination in federal government employment and most famously has heightened requirements beyond general employment discrimination laws for government contractors regarding employment discrimination, reporting requirements, and the potential penalty of being ineligible for gaining/renewing contracts if the contractor engages in discrimination. The implemented regulations are in 41 CFR 60.

The basic policy idea behind Executive Order 11246 is that when the federal government decides to award contracts, it wants extra assurance that the contractors are not engaging in something the federal government condemns: employment discrimination.

You might disagree with this goal; the ways Executive Order 11246 tries to accomplish this; and/or if it is successful at achieving its ends. That is a separate discussion from the ways revoking the Order changes the law.

Most importantly: Employment discrimination is still against the law whether or not Executive Order 11246 is in place or not. Rescinding Executive Order 11246 in no way makes it legal for covered employers including federal contractors and/or the federal government, to engage in employment discrimination. (some exceptions below).

Now to those exceptions (you are probably noticing that lawyers are always full of exceptions): There are likely some federal contractor employees who lose protection due to the revocation of Executive Order 11246. Under 41 CFR 60-1.5 the Executive Order 11246 applies to all contracts of more than 10k (with some exceptions). Most of our federal employment discrimination laws apply to employers with 15 or more employees. One exception is the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race discrimination and has no employer size threshold. Some states/localities cover employers with fewer employees. So yes, if you work for an employer with under 15 employees, that has a contract of more than 10k with the federal government (or in some cases a contract of any amount), and there is no other employment discrimination law that covers you, you have potentially lost your protections against employment discrimination. This exception will impact some people but is a far cry from the claims that the new Executive Order makes employment discrimination legal.

In short: Employment discrimination is still against the law. Employees: Know your rights. Employers: know your obligations.

In an article published in Law360 on January 16, 2025, Veronica Nannis and Viriginia Grimm discuss the Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, which was announced five months ago by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division.

The attorneys discuss the details of the program, which were developed to fill gaps that exist with existing initiatives such as the DOJ’s qui tam program and other agency whistleblower programs. Under the new pilot program, a whistleblower who provides information about corporate misconduct may be eligible for an award.

Nannis and Grimm highlight early returns of the program, including statements that 250 tips were reported in the first few months. However, they note other more established programs, such as the SEC’s Whistleblower Program, received approximately 24,980 tips in 2024.

While the program has been successful to some, others have been more critical, Nannis and Grimm write. The program lacks many of the important aspects of other established programs and has holes that could “disincentivize” potential whistleblowers from coming forward.

They conclude with a discussion of the fate of the program under the new presidential administration.

“The program could be in peril if it were to become politicized,” Nannis and Grime explain. “Advocates and interested parties on all sides would be wise to keep an eye on this program and any developments, especially as the new administration takes over.”

Read the article “Examining DOJ Corporate Whistleblower Pilot’s First 100 Days” on the Law360 website (subscription required).

In an article published on January 13, 2025, by Healio, Brian Markovitz and Mathew Seeburger explain the timeline of the Federal Trade Commission’s noncompete ban as well as its future under the Trump administration.

Markovitz and Seeburger explain that the ban is likely to be revoked moving forward due to the free-market business approach the FTC is expected to follow, including rejecting regulation.

Without a federal ban, they write, regulation of noncompete agreements will be up to state and local governments. Currently, only four states fully prohibit these agreements, whereas 33 states and the District of Columbia impose restrictions. As states create new laws and regulations fall into various categories, it will be important for all employees and contractors to know the requirements in their specific jurisdictions.

Whether the national noncompete ban falls through as expected or it lives, there will be significant implications for the healthcare industry, Markovitz and Seeburger conclude.

“To ensure compliance,” they explain, “both employers and employees should carefully review state and local requirements and consult local legal counsel if necessary.”

Read the article “Trump administration will likely kill the FTC’s controversial noncompete rule.” (PDF)