Author: JGL Law

Joseph, Greenwald & Laake managing director Burt Kahn has been named one of the country’s best medical malpractice litigation attorneys by The Best Lawyers in America. Burt was nominated by his peers for his consistent high-quality work representing families in instances of medical malpractice.

The full list of Best Lawyers in America honorees is set to be published in numerous high-profile national and international publications, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. It will honor the work of America’s most committed and most successful attorneys on a national level.

Burt has also held a spot on the list of Maryland and DC Super Lawyers since 2007. He has won widespread acclaim for his four decades of work helping individuals who have suffered unnecessarily due to the mistakes of doctors and hospitals. Not only has Burt mastered the courtroom, he has also cultivated an advanced understanding of sophisticated medical concepts, making him uniquely positioned to win millions of dollars in compensations for injured victims and their families. His empathy for victims and his impressive performances in trial have led many of his former clients to recommend him to others suffering from medical malpractice.

Only 5% of attorneys nationwide receive this designation each year. Jay has been named a Super Lawyer 4 years in a row. Jay recently took on a school board discrimination case that has received national media attention. 

Jay Holland is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group, and the chair of the firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice. He is a renowned employment and qui tam litigator known for taking on tough cases and achieving exceptional results.

Seven employers across the United States are facing workplace harassment lawsuits filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) included Joseph Greenwald & Laake principal Jay Holland in an Aug. 10 collective list of articles published about these lawsuits on SHRM Online. Specifically, Holland was quoted in an Aug. 8 article that discussed employees secretly recording work conversations for litigation purposes.

SHRM notes that workplace harassment claims make up approximately one-fourth of EEOC cases filed recently, and that about one-third of discrimination charged received by the EEOC include harassment allegations. With smartphones becoming a staple in the workplace, it has become easier for employees to record conversations with co-workers, supervisors, human resources and company executives as support for upcoming lawsuits.

“A recording of sexual harassment or a discriminatory comment can be very powerful evidence and damaging to the employer,” Holland told SHRM Online.

The article went on to discuss the different types of consent required for recording conversations, such as one-party and all-party consent. Each state maintains its own laws on what type of consent is required. It also discussed rules about recording conversations under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as well as potential public-relations risks from a leaked conversation, regardless of whether its recording was permitted or not.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

Jay Holland is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group, and the chair of the firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice. He is a renowned employment and qui tam litigator known for taking on tough cases and achieving exceptional results.

Nine Joseph, Greenwald & Laake attorneys have been recognized in the 25^th edition of The Best Lawyers of America as some of the country’s most successful, efficient and dedicated. Every attorney who made the list was selected through a peer review process, reflecting the high esteem in which their fellow legal professionals hold this year’s honorees.

David Bulitt, Debora Fajer-Smith, Stephen Friedman, Reza Golesorkhi, Jeffrey Greenblatt, Andrew Greenwald, Burt Kahn, Timothy O’Brien, and Steven Pavsner have all been featured on the list. Additionally, David, Stephen, Jeffrey, Andrew and Timothy are reprising their spots from last year’s list.

The number of JGL attorneys in this year’s list shows the community’s appreciation for JGL’s commitment to quality service. The above listed honorees come from numerous practice groups with a wide range of experiences, showing that JGL exceeds the expectations of their clients and peers in every area. The JGL staff looks forward to continuing its award-winning service to the community in coming years.

A lawsuit filed Tuesday in Howard County Circuit Court by three former top chiefs in the county’s public school system accuses school board members of discrimination, retaliation and harassment for political opinions, and in two cases, for sexual orientation. Joseph Greenwald & Laake principal Jay Holland represents the three officials: Tim Thornburg, former director of staff relations; Grace Chesney, former chief accountability officer; and John White, former director of communications. Holland spoke to Tim Prudente at The Baltimore Sun regarding the case.]

“We look forward to seeing this matter through and vindicating their rights and the harm that they suffered,” Holland told The Sun.

The three chiefs allege that the school board sought to drive out Foose, who resigned as superintendent in May 2017, and then targeted her chiefs with “discriminatory, hostile, harassing and abusive behavior.” Following her resignation, Thornburg resigned under extreme pressure, and both Chesney and White were laid off. The lawsuit comes in the wake of an 11-month investigation of the school board by the Howard County Office of Human Rights, led by investigator Cheryl Brower. Three reports of about 100 pages each state that there is reasonable cause to believe that the school board discriminated against Thornburg, Chesney and White.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

Jay Holland is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group, and the chair of the firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice. He is a renowned employment and qui tam litigator known for taking on tough cases and achieving exceptional results.

While it may at first glance seem that a non-profit organization’s philanthropic nature would set it apart from profit-driven business models, the legal reality of running a non-profit is actually often similar to that of a for-profit business. This is especially true regarding employer-employee relations, and the employer’s obligations to the employee under federal, state, and local employment laws and ordinances.  It is very rare indeed that employment-related, legal requirements are different for non-profit employers than that of companies. 

For instance, just like for-profit businesses, non-profits are obligated to obey the dictates of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA establishes the fundamental guidelines of employee rights. It prohibits child labor, for example, and mandates overtime pay for employees who have worked more than 40 hours in one week. Moreover, Title VII which protects employees from discrimination based on race, religion, and sex treats non-profit employers in most cases like other corporations. Similarly, the Family Medical Leave Act requirements are the same. Because non-profits are not asking employees to work for the profit of the business, they can fail to consider that they have essentially the same obligations to their employees as for-profit groups.

Non-profit organizations also need to understand state and local employment laws. State and local laws can vary greatly and are subject to change depending on local government administration. Therefore, non-profits would be well advised to work with a local attorney to ensure the non-profit’s compliance with state- and local-level employment law. Problems for non-profits sometimes arise when the non-profit’s management does not understand that sometimes state or local employment laws have more stringent requirements than federal law.

A non-profit organization should be able to focus all of its time and effort exclusively to the issues for which it works—hiring a lawyer to worry about the minutiae of employment law compliance can save an organization valuable time and effort and ensure that it does not run afoul of federal, state or local requirements.

Debora Fajer-Smith has proudly accepted an appointment to the MSBA Judicial Appointments Committee for the 2018-2019 fiscal year and was named a ‘Mover and Shaker’ by the Daily Record.

Debora Fajer-Smith is the chair of JGL’s Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Group. She has over 30 years of experience in being a passionate advocate for her clients’ rights. 

Joseph Greenwald & Laake principal Brian Markovitz was included in a Bloomberg Law report on strategies to creative more inclusive workplaces. With Bloomberg’s Martin Berman-Gorvine, he discussed how employers should approach the question of diversity in the current charged political environment. The report states that employers have been tougher on making their workplaces more diverse and inclusive due to recent changes in the country’s political climate.

Markovitz agreed that employers should take a hard line stance toward any employees who cross the line to open prejudice from disaffection and grumbling because these are blatant cases of discrimination. He said that people who attack others on the basis of protected characteristics “should not affect what employers do.”

“They’re wrong and they’re violating the law,” he continued. “I recommend to my employer clients they just fire somebody like this.”

The report also included case studies on large United States corporations, such as General Motors Company, Atlassian Corporation, McCann Worldgroup and Sodexo.

Brian Markovitz is a principal in JGL’s Labor and Employment and Civil Litigation practice groups and focuses on helping victims who have suffered severe injustices in the workplace. He represents individuals in complex employment litigation and appellate matters involving wrongful termination, retaliation by employers in response to reporting fraud or misconduct and discrimination on the basis on race, gender, age and sexual orientation.

To read Brian’s contribution to the Bloomberg Law report, click here.

Reproduced with permission. Published July 26, 2018. Copyright 2018 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) <http://www.bna.com>

Joseph Greenwald & Laake of counsel Debora Fajer-Smith has proudly accepted an appointment to the joint senate house oversight committee on workers compensation and employee benefits of the Md Legislature. Debora has served on the committee for many years, and was appointed based on her hard work and dedication to the MSBA. Her appointment is effective until June 30, 2019.

The co-chairs of the committee are Sidney Butcher, Tiffani Collins, Diane Feuerherd and John Frederickson. They will interview and recommend candidates for judicial vacancies in Maryland, and will advise the Judicial Nominations Commissions and the Governor as to whether a candidate is “highly recommended,” “recommended,” “not recommended,” “not recommended at this time,” or if the committee has “insufficient information” to form an opinion on the candidate’s qualifications.

Debora Fajer-Smith is the chair of JGL’s Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Group. She has over 30 years of experience in being a passionate advocate for her clients’ rights. She is a woman plaintiff attorney in Maryland with national honors with her induction to the College of Workers’ Compensation under the ABA and has gained a reputation as a formidable courtroom opponent and excellent negotiator. She continues to dedicate time to her profession as an appointed member of the MD Committee on Workers’ Compensation and Employee Benefits in the Maryland House Legislature. Her client cases take her all over the state of Maryland. Her motto is, “It’s all about lifting the lives of others, in order that they may thrive on their own.”

Reports obtained by both The Baltimore Sun and WBAL 11 News allege that some members of the Howard County school board discriminated against three former top-level employees, creating a hostile work environment. Joseph Greenwald & Laake principal Jay Holland is representing the three alleged victims of the discriminatory and homophobic behavior.

Holland spoke to both the Sun and WBAL regarding the reports, which followed the former Howard County schools superintendent Renee Foose’s resignation last year. The reports found that when Foose resigned, three of her top-level deputies; Elizabeth Grace Chesney, Timothy Thornburg and John White; were refused appointments, barred from meetings and sent to smaller offices.

In the reports, human rights investigator Cheryl Brower wrote that there was sufficient cause to believe that the three employees were targeted for supporting Foose and for being gay, in the cases of both Chesney and Thornburg.

“Some of it is shocking, but the conduct and behavior was shocking,” Holland told WBAL in an on-screen interview. “Two of these individuals were discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation, and all three of these individuals were discriminated against based upon their political opinion.”

While the Howard County Board of Education has argued against the allegations, the three former employees are standing behind their stories.

“These reports are merely a vindication of what they say happened to them,” Holland told WBAL. “They were singled out.”

The three employees filed complaints with the county Office of Human Rights last year, and when the investigation concluded, they withdrew their cases to explore court action.

“We will decide shortly whether to file a lawsuit,” Holland told the Sun.

To read the Baltimore Sun article, click here. To view the WBAL video, click here.

Jay Holland is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group, and the chair of the firm’s Labor, Employment and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice. He is a renowned employment and qui tam litigator known for taking on tough cases and achieving exceptional results.

The Daily Record has published a story detailing the success of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake attorneys Alyse Prawde and Timothy Maloney in a recent case against the Montgomery County government.  The victory sets a valuable precedent in terms of the interpretation of the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA).

Joseph, Greenwald and Laake represented Bernadette Fowler Lamson, a long-time senior counsel in the Montgomery County Attorney’s office.  Lamson filed an MPIA request that sought disclosure of supervisory notes withheld by her employer and her supervisor, Silvia Kinch. Lamson asserted that the notes might have been the basis of a negative job evaluation that she received. In general, Maryland state and county employees are entitled to see their own personnel files under the MPIA.

Maloney argued the case in the Maryland Court of Appeals and attorney Alyse Prawde drafted the briefs filed in the case. 

The Court of Appeals reversed the rulings of two lower courts, holding that the notes had to be reviewed by a judge to see if they should be disclosed to Lamson. The lower court had held that the notes were not subject to the MPIA because they were “in a personal journal that was never a part of [Lamson’s] personnel file and were intended to be private.”

The Court of Appeals concluded that “the mere physical location of a record is not necessarily dispositive of its characterization.  It is equally possible that the notes contain entries that relate to {Lamson’s] employment and or the devaluation of her performance rating.  In either instance, there is uncertainty regarding the nature of the records at issue and must be resolved by closely examining the notes at issue, as well as the exceptions offered thereto.”

Timothy Maloney is a principal at JGL with decades of experience in both appellate and trial litigation

Alyse Prawde is an attorney in JGL’s Civil Litigation group. Alyse earned her J.D. cum laude from the University of Maryland School of Law, at which she was honored with the Elizabeth Maxwell Carroll Cestnut Prize for her excellence in scholarship and writing. Her already impressive legal portfolio includes working as the Executive Articles Editor and the Maryland Journal of International Law and as an attorney with the Immigration Clinic.

If you want to get “hitched” in the District of Columbia, you don’t have to obtain a marriage license or exchange vows during a religious or civil ceremony in order to do so!

Pursuant to case law in the District of Columbia, in order to establish a common law marriage the following requirements must be met by two legally capable individuals: a mutual agreement, in the present tense, to enter into a state of matrimony; and the consummation of their agreement by cohabitating as husband and wife. (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Britton, 269 F.2d 249, 251 (1959))  “Although there is no set formula required for the agreement, the exchange of words must ‘inescapably and unambiguously impl[y] that an agreement was being entered into to become man and wife as of the time of the mutual consent.”  (Coates v. Watts, 622 A.2d 25, 27 (1993))  Contrary to popular belief, there is no requirement that the parties live together for a specific period of time in order to establish a common law marriage.

The District of Columbia is one of the few states that still authorizes individuals to establish a common law marriage. While Maryland law does not authorize two individuals to establish a “common law” marriage within the state, Maryland courts uphold marriages that were validly entered into in accordance with another state’s law.  As a result, an individual seeking to obtain a divorce in Maryland whose marriage was established based on the constructs of common law marriage in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, must prove that their marriage was validly entered into in accordance with the law where the marriage was entered– just as individuals who were married by religious or civil ceremony must do.

What proof is required to establish a common law marriage? In accordance with DC law, a common law marriage may be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence, but the best evidence and possibly, the most preferred, is the testimony of each of the parties. (Marcus v. Director, 548 F.2d 1044, 1048-49 (1976))  The judge will determine the credibility of each party and what weight should be provided to their testimony. (Id.)  “The proponent of the marriage must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was a common law marriage.  They must show that the parties cohabitated as Husband and Wife, following an express mutual agreement, which must be words of the present tense.”  (Bansda v. Wheeler, 995 A.2d 189 (DC 2010))