The Third Circuit’s recent decision could have a wide-ranging impact on employers. They ruled a sole use of a racial slur could warrant a harassment claim. The ruling came following a case where two employees were fired after reporting the use of a slur. Click below for the full article.
Maloney and his team of JGL litigation attorneys argued the victim’s apartment complex did not provide ample security despite frequent complaints from residents. The police had been called to the complex over 500 times in the five years before the incident. Timothy Maloney hopes that it will remind apartment managers that they have an “absolute duty” to ensure the safety of their residents.
Timothy’s team for the trial included litigator Matt Bryant, summary judgement opposition by Alyse Prawde and motions in limine by Levi Zaslow and Timothy Creed.
For more information click the image below.
Police, legislators and judges are still trying to understand how new bail policies rolled out this month will affect the prison population. Maloney, a former delegate, weighed in with a quote.
The article is titled “High Court Term Ends with Little Fireworks.” Markovitz helps break down some of the Supreme Court decisions that may affect employment law.
Principals, David Bulitt, Jeffrey Greenblatt and Anne Grover, were recognized by Bethesda Magazine as the area’s top divorce attorneys.
David Bulitt was commended for his work in cases involving children. A father of four daughters and married for 30 years, Bulitt has invaluable insights to the importance of family. Jeffrey Greenblatt was praised for his work on grey divorces, or cases involving those 50 years and older. And Anne Grover was recognized as a rising star, one of the top lawyers under 40, for her determination in providing clients with a favorable outcome.
The article ran in the magazine’s July/August edition, and can be read in full here.
To learn more about David, Jeffrey or Anne, visit the following links:
The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday, June 26, that it plans to hear arguments later this year on a case that is of great importance to corporate whistleblowers and to people who support them.
The case centers on the Dodd-Frank law, which was passed by Congress in 2010 in the wake of the financial meltdown and provides major protections for whistleblowers, such as freedom from retaliation and potentially large cash awards for pointing out corporate wrongdoing.
The issue before the Court is who qualifies as a whistleblower under Dodd-Frank? Specifically, do the whistleblower protections extend to someone who reported the alleged wrongdoing internally, within the corporation, or do they only help people who choose to report the problems to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission?
In the case that the Court agreed to take, a company called Digital Realty Trust is facing off against a whistleblower, a former company vice president who was fired after complaining about Digital’s alleged violations of securities laws. The employee initially made his complaints internally, not to the SEC.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the employee qualifies for whistleblower protections. In two other cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled the same way, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that an employee must go to the SEC to qualify for whistleblower protection. The Supreme Court granted Digital’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to resolve this circuit split.
The actual words of the Dodd-Frank law give whistleblower status to an employee who reports wrongdoing “to the commission,” in other words to the SEC. But the SEC itself, in regulations that it issued and in court, has consistently taken the view that people who report internally also qualify.
In 2015, the SEC said that, if protections were to be limited only to whistleblowers who contact the agency, it would risk discouraging “some individuals from first reporting internally in appropriate circumstances and, thus, jeopardize the investor-protection and law-enforcement benefits that can result from internal reporting.” The 9th Circuit agreed and said that the term “whistleblower” needs to be read broadly so as to encourage people to report things that don’t appear to be right. It also said that since the SEC is the chief regulator of corporate malfeasance, its views are entitled to deference (known as “Chevron” deference, after the Supreme Court decision) from the courts.
If the Court decides that the only whistleblowers who are protected are those who report to the SEC, it’s not hard to imagine that people will go straight to the SEC when they spot a possible problem and skip the internal reporting process. Not only will that reduce the options available to whistleblowers, but it will often make things more difficult for companies. After all, a lot of companies would rather handle an allegation internally than face a formal complaint from the SEC. Indeed, there is some irony to the position being taken by Digital and its friends at the Chamber of Commerce. In the context of False Claims Act whistleblower claims, the Chamber and the defense bar have bemoaned the lack of a requirement to report corporate fraud internally before filing a sealed Qui Tam complaint, arguing they should have an opportunity to remedy the alleged fraud internally prior to being subjected to litigation. Yet here, they take the position that reporting internally provides no protection for whistleblowers. So, corporate defendants appear to have an appetite for having their cake and eating it too, when it suits them best.
It’s not surprising that the Court chose to take the case. It’s an important question of federal law and one on which the courts of appeals are divided. It will certainly be interesting to see how the newly minted Justice Gorsuch approaches the issue; however, he has shown an outright hostility to the concept of deference to agency interpretation in the past. So it would be very surprising if he voted in favor of the whistleblower here. It’s hard to predict what the Court as a whole will do, but as a lawyer who represents whistleblowers, I hope that the Court opts for maximum protection of these brave individuals.
Principal Jay Holland was recently quoted in The Hill magazine regarding the president’s travel ban. The article titled, “Agencies scramble to put travel ban in place,” discussed the challenges of implementing the ban, now that the supreme court has partially allowed it to take effect.
Nihad Awad, the national executive director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and Patricia Rojas-Ungár, vice president of public affairs for the U.S. Travel association were also quoted in the same article along with other professionals.
To read the article in full visit (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/339584-agencies-scramble-to-put-travel-ban-in-place)
Principal Veronica Nannis wrote an article for the Daily Record’s Medical Law Report titled, “How the government targets medical necessity fraud.” The article covered common medical necessity fraud cases, how these cases can occur and how to prevent this from occurring.
The article ran in the June edition of the Daily Record, and can be read by clicking below.
Principal Jerry Miller sponsored a tournament team for Hope Connections’ event, Bowling For Hope. Hope connections is a nonprofit dedicated to providing free emotional support, wellness and educational programs to those fighting cancer and their loved ones. As a nonprofit, Hope Connections relies on fundraising events like this and generous donors to further their mission.
The event took place on Thursday at Bowlmor Lanes in Bethesda.
He has been selected every year since 2013. Matthew M. Bryant is an attorney and senior counsel at Joseph Greenwald & Laake, PA, in Greenbelt, Maryland. Mr. Bryant has a general litigation practice and handles cases involving employment and labor law as well as estate and trust litigation. He represents clients in Greenbelt and throughout the District of Columbia metropolitan area.
Click below for more of Matthew.
Jason Sarfati was promoted to associate last week. The Washington Business Journal has recognized him in their “People on the Move” section.
Principal Jerry Miller spoke at the Montgomery Count Council of PTA’s annual Spring Training event. The event included workshops geared towards different PTA roles and duties, like boardsmanship and child advocacy. Miller conducted a workshop for board members on their fiduciary obligations.
“A fiduciary,” Miller explained, “is a person who holds a position of confidence or trust, with or for another, such that the relationship creates a legal duty to act solely for the benefit of another.”
Miller also reviewed the legal duties of board members, and how to satisfy those duties. He highlighted some common pitfalls, and offered some best practices that board members could implement into their own schools.
The event was held this past Monday at Gaithersburg high school, and aimed to prepare PTA/PTSAs for success in the upcoming academic year.
