Author: JGL Law

Joseph Greenwald & Laake, P.A. is proud to announce that 14 attorneys have been selected to Super Lawyers, the respected national ranking of top attorneys based on peer recognition and professional achievement. JGL’s 2018 Super Lawyers are attorneys David Bulitt, Joseph Creed, Jeffrey Greenblatt, Andrew Greenwald, Jay Holland, Burt Kahn, Walter Laake, Timothy Maloney, Steven Pavsner and Steven Vinick. Maloney, a principal attorney and preeminent trial lawyer, was named to the Top 100 list. JGL’s 2018 “Super Lawyers Rising Stars” are attorneys Matthew Bryant, Anne Grover, Rama Taib-Lopez and Levi Zaslow.

“This achievement is a testament to the tremendous efforts that our attorneys put toward helping each individual client and the success they bring to the firm,” said Kahn, managing director of the firm. “It is a prestigious accomplishment for both these attorneys and the entire firm.”

Published by Thomson Reuters, Super Lawyers recognizes only the top 5 percent of all Maryland attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. Regarded as among the state’s top up-and-coming attorneys, the Super Lawyers Rising Stars must be 40 years old or younger, or have been in practice for 10 or fewer years. Super Lawyers are chosen through statewide surveys of attorneys, independent research and peer reviews by practice area.

For more than 40 years, Joseph Greenwald & Laake has assisted businesses and individuals in Maryland and the District of Columbia with power legal advice on matters of all types. Our attorneys offer sophisticated counsel with a personal touch, and take pride in forging lasting partnerships to invest in their clients’ long-term success.

Click the image below for more info on our Super Lawyers. 

Divorce is a challenging, and many times painful, process for any family to endure, especially for a family with children. However, this process becomes more complex between parents who have children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) or other learning disabilities (“LD”), because oftentimes, these children require certain accommodations to ensure that they are secure and best able to succeed. Issues such as child custody and visitation become more complicated to negotiate as these parents must take careful consideration that the agreement reflects the unique caregiving needs that the child requires.

When drafting an access schedule for a child with ADHD/LD, it is crucial that parents recognize and understand the challenges faced by that child, now that he/she will be toggling between two homes. For these kids, it is especially important to maintain a precise, consistent agreement, as disruptions to their routines can cause discomfort and can upset their day-to-day lives.

Some factors to consider when drafting an access and custody agreement for a child with ADHD/LD include:

Residence. Will the child have a primary residence?  With which parent? Who will maintain primary care for the child? Who has been the primary caregiver for the child since her diagnosis? Is the child old enough to weigh in on where he/she primarily resides and how often he goes to the other parent’s home? It is important to solidify a plan to best benefit the child in order to avoid potential stress and upsetting situations.  

Access. Visitation or access schedules can take many forms, from alternating weekends to alternating weeks, with many variations in between.  However, it is important to consider the unique needs of an ADHD/LD child when drafting the agreement. Will that child be able to remember his books?  His assignments?  Will he have what he needs in his backpack for after-school activities?  Does she need multiple sets of textbooks, for school, for both parent’s homes?  Schedules that call for frequent transitions between homes can often be a recipe for disaster when it comes to kids with ADHD/LD.  

Inclusion. During and after a divorce, it is crucial for both parents to collaborate in choosing inclusive social and educational programs for their child with ADHD/LD. Divorce lawyers can help parents resolve issues surrounding these and other items, such as academics, activities, healthcare and therapy needs as well as the constellation of issues surrounding those issues.  Which parent is vested with decision-making authority and/or the methodology for making those decisions is important to consider before finalizing an agreement. The last thing the parents should do is to thrust any child, much less one with ADHD/LD, into a complicated decision or difference of opinion between parents.  

Crafting an access schedule and custody agreement for a child with ADHD/LD can be a complex task. However, it is a task that requires the cooperation and commitment of both parents in order to best assess and meet the unique needs of their child. A precisely-drafted visitation agreement can help to iron out some of these complexities, so that parents can focus on ensuring healthy growth for their children.

On April 14, JGL associate Lauren Agresti proudly represented Joseph Greenwald & Laake on a panel at the Lowe House Office Building in Annapolis discussing careers in law and public policy for student participants in the Maryland Student Legislature program. Topics included choosing a career path, making career changes, and forming mutually supportive relationships with peers and colleagues.

Maryland Student Legislature is a nonprofit program that facilitates a state legislature simulation for college students every year. Maryland Student Legislature has provided an invaluable education in civics and leadership to Maryland’s students for more than a quarter of a century. Their alumni have gone on to serve in the Maryland General Assembly, the Governor’s Office, work in Congress and the Executive Branch, work across federal agencies, and lead successful careers in law, politics, journalism, civil service, academia, and much more.

Lauren Agresti is an Associate in Joseph, Greenwald & Laake’s Civil Litigation practice group. Her work includes litigation matters in state and federal court representing individuals, organizations, and businesses facing complex legal challenges. No matter the issue, Lauren leaves no stone unturned in pursuit of the best possible resolution for her clients.

 

Earlier this week, Joseph Greenwald & Laake proudly sponsored the annual State of the Economy address for Prince George’s County held at the new University of Maryland Hotel in College Park, Maryland. The 2018 State of the Economy Breakfast, hosted by the Prince George’s County Economic Development Corporation (PGCEDC), was attended by several JGL partners, JGL attorney Brenda Adimora and senior paralegal Jamerra Cherry.  The breakfast featured keynote speaker and County Executive, Rushern L. Baker III, who delivered his reflections and predictions for the 2018 legislative session. This was the Executive’s final address, which touched on some economic development initiatives including an expansion of the county’s EDI Fund, geographic development incentives and an expansion of transit-oriented development.

The PGCEDC is committed to providing businesses the tools they need to succeed. With programs such as their small business incubator program, international business seminars and business forums, they aim to attract and expand business development in Prince George’s County and Maryland as a whole.

Photo credit: The Facebook page of Prince George’s County Economic Development Corporation

JGL Brian Markovitz sat down with the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) to discuss sexual harassment cases when there is a “he said/she said” stalemate. Asking open-ended questions, checking evidence and questioning the accused are just some of the tactics discussed. Markovitz, a seasoned attorney in labor and employment law, emphasizes the importance of actively listening to both sides of an argument. “Never comment on the validity of statements being made in interviews,” Markovitz explains and that “while it is necessary to stress the importance of honesty in these interviews, it’s also important to make the person being interviewed feel comfortable enough to talk. “It’s a delicate balance,” Markovitz concludes.

Markovitz is a principal in the firm’s Labor and Employment and Civil Litigation practice groups and focuses primarily on helping victims who have suffered severe injustice in the workplace. His clients span numerous industries, including health care, pharmaceuticals and construction. He represents individuals nationally in complex employment litigation and appellate matters involving wrongful termination, retaliation and discrimination.

To read the article in full click here:  https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/Pages/harassment-cases-he-said-she-said.aspx

 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that employers cannot pay female employees less than their male coworkers for the same work, based on their salaries from their previous positions. The decision overturns a ruling made last year by a smaller panel of Ninth Circuit judges.

Jay Holland recently sat down with Law 360 to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the new decision. While some argue that this will be beneficial in closing the wage gap, others point out that many women will have lower previous salaries due to the existing wage gap. “Does this mean that this rule of general application only applies in some antiseptic review of a stack of resumes?” Holland asked. “Most hirings involve some form of individual negotiation, so it’s confusing.”

To read the article in full click the Law360 logo below.

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. 

 

In a 5-4 decision last week, the Supreme Court in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro departed from its long-standing view that the exemptions from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s, (“FLSA”), overtime requirements are to be narrowly interpreted.  The FLSA contains a number of exemptions from its requirements that employers pay overtime premium pay to certain non-exempt workers for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week.  See 29 U.S.C. § 213(b).  Importantly, if an employee is exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements, their employer does not have to pay to them overtime premium pay for any hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. 

The underlying lawsuit was filed by current and former service advisors of Encino Motorcars, LLC, a California car dealership.  The service advisors alleged that their employer violated the FLSA by failing to pay to them their proscribed overtime rate for any hours worked in excess of forty hours per week during the term of their respective employment.  Encino moved to dismiss the service advisors’ action arguing that the aggrieved service advisors were exempt from the FLSA’s requirements.  

The District Court agreed with Encino and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. However on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, which was then summarily appealed to the Supreme Court. On a grant of writ of certiorari, the high court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and ruled that the car dealership service advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements.

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court rejected its long-standing, and frequently stated, view that the FLSA’s exemptions should be interpreted narrowly because the FLSA is a “remedial statute.” Reasoning that “[b]ecause the FLSA gives no ‘textual indication’ that its exemptions should be construed narrowly, ‘there is no reason to give [them] anything other than a fair (rather than a ‘narrow’) interpretation.’”  Thus, the FLSA’s exemptions should be given “a fair reading.”  In further support of its decision, the high court reasoned that the FLSA also contains over two dozen exemption from the statute’s overtime requirement, which “are as much a part of the FLSA’s purpose as the overtime-pay requirement.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Encino, without question, clarifies whether automotive service advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements; however, the ruling may also extend to employers outside of the automotive industry.  While it remains to be seen how the Encino decision is applied by district courts facing FLSA exemption (both overtime and minimum wage) lawsuits, it is fair to say that employers are no longer facing an uphill battle when combating an employee’s claim to overtime premium pay.  However, employers must still take care to ensure, given a fair and plain reading of the FLSA, that a particular employee’s position is indeed exempt from the overtime requirements and not attempt to unreasonably interpret the statute to shoehorn employees into the FLSA’s exemptions when a fair reading of the statute would not support such failure to pay overtime.

JGL senior counsel Matthew J. Focht recently worked with the National Business Institute (NBI) to host an educational seminar on evidence in the courtroom. As evidence is an important aspect of any trial, this seminar focused on the types of evidence and the ways to successfully use it in a case. Focht focused on expert reports and scientific evidence, drawing on his decades of experience litigating medical malpractice cases.

The National Business Institute is dedicated to providing continuing legal education. They provide educational materials in a variety of formats including live webcasts, books, and videos. Their topics range from family law to government law and everywhere in between.

Matt Focht is a trial lawyer in the firm’s Personal Injury practice group. He helps individuals who have been seriously injured in avoidable accidents recover the compensation they deserve in litigation before state and federal courts throughout Maryland and the DC area. Matt has deep experience in managing a broad range of high-stakes personal injury matters on behalf of victims and surviving family members, including automobile accidents, wrongful death cases and a variety of other serious accidents caused by negligence.

Law360 recently captured JGL principal Brian Markovitz’s perspective of the personnel changes executed by EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and the potential whistleblower claims that may result.  According to a recent New York Times report, five top advisers and security personnel who questioned some of Pruitt’s expenditures, travel habits and security­ related moves were either demoted to jobs with less responsibility, transferred to jobs outside of Pruitt’s group, placed on administrative leave without pay, asked to resign, or investigated. Although the EPA defends these employee changes and denies any connection between the changes and the employees’ actions against Pruitt, the employees could have claims under the Whistleblower Protection Act according to legal experts.

Markovitz believes these employee changes may not only result in whistleblower claims but also may negatively impact the EPA’s employee morale. “The super talented employees who have been there for years leave, so you have an institutional brain drain, which is terrible,” Markovitz said. “And everybody else just keeps their heads down. They just do enough of their job to try to keep their job and feed their families. Nobody’s going to stick their neck out, creatively or otherwise.”

To read the Law360 article in its entirety, please click on the image below.

In his practice, Markovitz serves clients from a variety of industries including government, construction, healthcare, and many more. His clients trust him to help them during their most desperate times, and they appreciate his dedication to correcting injustices that have a tremendous impact on their lives. Markovitz brings an individualized and holistic approach to every case, taking into account each client’s distinct needs and goals in resolving the dispute. His goal isn’t just to win the case – it’s also about helping each client in every way he can.

The African Art Museum of Maryland (AAMM) recently celebrated their Spring Open House and the launch of their new project, “Art from the Heart.” JGL attorney Eleanor Hunt was a sponsor of the free event and is a proud member of the Maple Lawn community.

AAMM is the first museum in the Maple Lawn community, and since its inception, it has been dedicated to encouraging a broader understanding and awareness of the diverse cultures and artistic expressions of Africa. The non-profit museum hosts a variety of events, including hands-on workshops, community events and organized trips to Africa. Hunt currently serves on the board of directors for the museum.

Jay Holland was honored to present at the prestigious 2018 Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium in Baltimore, Maryland on March 22, 2018. 

In his presentation, Jay addressed the intersection between disability rights law and Qui Tam cases under the False Claims Act, and how disability rights advocates can use the powerful tool of the False Claims Act in disability related cases.  Jay not only addressed the basics of the law, but the nuances as well, and how disability cases can often involve claims of Medicare and Medicaid fraud by unscrupulous health care providers. There was a very lively exchange and robust questions from the attendees. 

The symposium drew disability rights advocates from all parts of the country. The day consisted of plenary sessions and workshops provided an opportunity for attendees to examine subjects such as law enforcement and disability, discrimination against employees with disabilities and disparities in healthcare for minorities. These session were presented by distinguished law professors, practitioners and advocates. Mark Riccobono, president of the National Federation of the Blind, presented a keynote address during the symposium.

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.

Ever want to see an attorney in action? Well, now you can! Attorney Megan Benevento recently testified in support of House Bill 500, a bill which will make it a criminal offense for mandatory reporters to knowingly fail to report child abuse and neglect. She has the knowledge and experience to be at the forefront of these issues. Her testimony was recorded and can be viewed online through a link provided below. No doubt, her passion and experience as a mandatory reporter and as a former social worker come through in her chosen words used throughout her time in the assembly’s spotlight.

To watch the full testimony, click here and scroll to 22:18. Megan also takes questions directly from the delegates from 26:28-34:55.