Author: JGL Law

We may not all know the term emoji, but we have all seen them or used them. Emojis are small digital images or icons used to express an idea or emotion online. The term is only a couple of decades old and derives from the Japanese words e, a picture, and moji, a letter or character.

Emojis are cute, fun . . . and, at the risk of being a buzz-kill, can get you in a whole lot of legal trouble. As a labor and employment lawyer, I have seen that “emoji law” is becoming a larger and larger factor in litigation, particularly in cases that involve allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination.

In fact, employment attorneys should now start thinking about setting up emoji-awareness seminars for companies on how emojis are creating new questions, and perhaps conflicts, in workplaces. It’s quite appropriate to ask, “Is that winky-face emoji friendly, flirtatious or an instance of sexual harassment?”

I see three basic issues emerging from the use of emojis in the workplace. First, they are slang, and slang means different things to different people. In different cultures, a symbol may mean widely disparate things. For example, the “hands-up” symbol is a positive sign for most Americans, but for Chinese people, it is dismissive and means “stay away from me.”

The use of slang leads to misunderstandings in many contexts. For example, I saw tennis star Roger Federer being interviewed on TV, and a reporter asked him, “Why are you called a GOAT? Do you raise farm animals?” The reporter did not realize that GOAT is often used in sports slang as an abbreviation for the Greatest of All Time.  In fact there is a GOAT emoji. 

Secondly, the use of emojis can be said to imply a lack of seriousness and can take away from the significance of your message. If a boss receives an email from a subordinate that contains a smiley-face emoji, she may not take the message seriously. In other words, emojis can convey a credibility issue.

Furthermore, emojis can be racially coded or coded for gender without the writer even knowing it. An emoji with a certain skin color, if sent to a minority employee by a supervisor, can later serve as evidence of a racially hostile work environment. The standard that the courts use in these cases is whether the harassment is severe or pervasive – and emojis can be evidence showing that the harassment is indeed pervasive. This can create serious problems for employers since under the rules of discovery, these emojis can and will be turned over to the opposing party in litigation.

The broad lesson is that workplace communications simply should not be the same as casual conversations with our friends. They need to be formal and businesslike – and the use of emojis in business conversations can come back to haunt the employer.

In addition, emojis can be misinterpreted. There is often no consensus on what emotions an emoji is intended to represent. In a casual chat with a friend, any ambiguity can be readily cleared up, but in the workplace, a misinterpretation can linger and result in difficult questions in litigation.

In fact, I would advise a law firm that the use of emojis in communications between associates and partners, or between lawyers and clients, is never appropriate. The risk is just too high. Now, other companies have different cultures. It might be different in a small startup high-tech company, where the culture is far more informal. But for most companies, if you want to be safe, the risk of confusion and the risk of the emoji being used as courtroom evidence are just too great.

In fact, companies’ style manuals for staff ought to include policies on the use of emojis. It’s wise for employers to evaluate this issue and to understand how the use of emojis can create serious risks.

The event, titled “CLE: LGBT Parentage and Marriage Issues: An Essential Family Law Update and Analysis,” provided an up-to-date analysis and practical review of family law, LGBT parentage and marriage issues in the wake of cases such as Obergefell, Schmidt and Conover. 

Jeffrey Greenblatt has over 43 years of experience representing individuals in complex, emotionally-charged family law matters in Maryland. He has a strong emphasis in areas such as divorce, alimony, child custody and protective orders, and is a compassionate advocate for each one of his clients. He is also a pioneer in the emerging area of family law, Gray Divorce, or the divorce of couples over 50 years old.

 

The New York Times and The New Yorker first reported the accusations by more than a  dozen women that accused Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault or rape. More women came forward following the reports, and soon after, the Weinstein Company board of directors fired Weinstein from the company.

Holland told The Wrap, “The fact of the matter is that Harvey Weinstein was the face of the company, and he ran the company. And if he sexually harassed these women, the company might automatically be liable.”

Holland also predicted that the potential liability means that the company will almost certainly cease to exist as an enterprise, as reports have shown that the company is discussing a fire sale of its assets. Click the image below for the full article.

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. 

Principal Ann Grover, sponsored and participated in the Montgomery County Bar Foundation’s 25th Annual Golf, Tennis Charity Classic & Silent Auction.  JGL attorneys Matthew Focht and Matthew Kreiser teamed up and won their flight in the tournament.  The event has a special significance, as it serves as the primary fundraising event for many of the bar foundation’s community outreach programs.

Due to its charitable cause, the event drew a large crowd of golfers and non-golfers alike. Participants received a sleeve of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake Titleist golf balls and tees (most of which can now be found now in the woods and lakes at Manor Golf Course). 

In addition to the golf tournament the event also featured a tennis game and a silent auction. The tournament was held at Manor Country Club in Rockville Maryland.  

Holland supplied some insight on the employment rights of NFL players if his team, or the NFL, were to fire a player for “taking a knee?”  Could the player claim discrimination or retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Would the player have any success under the prohibition against retaliation under the National Labor Relations Act?  The answers hinge on whether the discrimination or retaliation was related to workplace conditions.

Jay Holland is the chair of Joseph Greenwald & Laake’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. 

Click the image below for the full article:

Instant messaging has become an increasingly popular way for businesses to facilitate communication and collaboration. With these informal shorthand communication methods has come the rise of the pictographic characters known as emoji. While emoji can generally be a fun way for people to communicate, many lawyers are now encouraging employees to keep them out of business communication. 

Emoji-use can be misconstrued between multiple parties, and sometimes, the meaning of a particular emoji can change depending on the context and culture in which it’s used. It can also create problems in terms of workplace misunderstandings, in terms of areas like gender and race, that could potentially lead to legal issues down the line. In this podcast, Jay discusses that, and encourages the use of emoji-awareness seminars to educate employers and employees on the potential legal dangers of this type of informal communication.

To hear the full podcast, click here.

Jay Holland is the chair of Joseph Greenwald & Laake’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 decision is regarding if employment agreements can bar workers from pursuing employment-related claims in class action lawsuits. This comes after the Supreme Court heard arguments from three consolidated cases regarding the question. Although it’s likely a decision won’t be reached for another year or so, several lawyers have voiced their opinions and concerns.

To read Markovitz’s opinion and to read the full article click the image below:

A recent survey shows that the majority of Americans do not have an estate plan – in the form of either a will or a living trust – in place. Among Americans 72 years old and above, 81 percent do have an estate plan, but 78 percent of millennials (ages 18-36), 64 percent of Generation X individuals (ages 37 to 52) and 40 percent of people between 53 and 71 years old do not have a will.

Unfortunately, not having an estate plan may be as bad as having one that you do not desire. Each state has its own laws of intestate succession, which govern what happens to the property of a person who dies without leaving a will or other estate plan. In cases like this, the presumptions of the legal system, rather than your own wishes, will determine who will receive your assets after you die.

There are many reasons why people don’t prepare wills. Understandably, some don’t wish to think about their own death. Some fail to understand the potential harm to their loved ones and their assets that can come from not planning their estates and/or the options to alleviate that harm.  Some are aware of the risks, but simply put off the process.  As I wrote last year in connection to the estate of the late entertainer Prince, who died without an estate plan:

Of course there is a middle ground here as well.  Perhaps Prince understood and appreciated the challenges of planning his estate, but thought that he had plenty of time to attend to that or was not ready to tackle the challenges of that process. This is a very popular mindset among all people, including many of the most successful people.

Furthermore, it’s not enough to make an estate plan; while that’s clearly a basic step, it’s only the first step. It’s also crucial to review and update the plan regularly as the years go by. Every few years is certainly not too short of an interval for you to review your estate plan to see if it still meets your needs.

Even if you have a will and an estate plan, your life, and the lives of those closest to you, may have changed. You or one of your children may have divorced or remarried. You may have acquired property in a state other than the one where you live. You may have sold an important asset. One of your beneficiaries may have died or become unable to manage their own affairs. Your attitudes toward one of your children or grandchildren may have changed. One of your children or grandchildren may have reached the point of financial maturity. There are innumerable possibilities, and you should consider all of them on a regular basis when reviewing your estate plan. You can click here to hear Paul provide an overview of probate process in Maryland. 

There will be costs associated with making and updating your estate plan, but think of the financial and emotional costs that would be associated with not having one or not keeping it up to date. Possible exposure to taxation that could otherwise be avoided is only the beginning of the expenses and headaches that your family might incur.

Regarding the Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis case, which deals with forced arbitration in employment litigation. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for the case on Oct. 2. 

The case asks whether an agreement that requires an employee to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration, and waive class and collective proceedings, is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, according to SCOTUS blog.

Markovitz told BNA, “The National Labor Relations Act very clearly protects concerted activity and this digs right into that. It’s kind of intellectually dishonest to think the other way.”

Brian Markovitz is a principal in Joseph Greenwald & Laake’s Labor and Employment Group. He represents employees who have been wrongfully terminated, who have suffered discrimination at work, or who have been retaliated against for reporting fraud or misconduct. He is one of the nation’s leading practitioners representing whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act. 

Click below for the full articles. 

 

 

 

The presentation was titled “Anatomy of a Family Law Case: Process, Planning & Resources,” and also featured P. Lindsay Parvis, Esq. from Dragga, Hannon & Wills and Christopher Roberts, Esq. from Lerch Early and Brewer. 

Anne is a principal in Joseph Greenwald & Laake’s Family Law practice, who has earned a reputation as a skilled negotiator and litigator who brings a sophisticated understanding of financial and tax issues to her analysis of her client’s needs. She represents clients facing thorny family matters who know that they can rely on her for compassionate and aggressive representation in cases including separation and divorce, child custody disputes, contempt and enforcement proceedings, and more. 

 

Deonte Carraway, 24, was an aide at Judge Sylvania W. Woods Elementary School, where authorities said he used his position to sexually abuse children and produce child pornography. He was sentenced on Sept. 28, and will serve his 100-year sentence simultaneously with the 75-year prison term he received last month in federal court on related charges.
Several of the parents of the abused children have filed several civil lawsuits against Carraway, Glenarden and the Prince George’s County School system. Maloney represents several of the families who have filed these lawsuits. 

“We are grateful for the court’s very strong sentence,” Maloney said, quoted in the article. “Now that the criminal cases have been concluded, our clients will now be able to seek relief in the pending civil cases.” Click the image below for the full article. 

Maloney is a preeminent trial lawyer who has obtained millions of dollars in recoveries for his clients in a wide variety of matters, including civil rights, employment discrimination, whistleblower actions and high-stakes business litigation. He is a committed advocate for the public good who has held leadership roles with many civic and charitable organization. 

 

Senior counsel, Eleanor Hunt recently hosted a wine and cheese tasting at Maple Lawn Wine and Spirits in Fulton. Hunt enjoys being an active member of her community. She previously served on the Maple Lawn Homeowners Association, before founding the Maple Lawn Women’s Networking Group. Hunt currently serves on the board of trustees for the African Art Museum of Maryland.