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.
The breakfast was an inspiring event raising awareness and funds for Ayuda of the greater Washington DC area. This event was appropriately held during Hispanic Heritage Month, which is celebrated from September 15 – October 15. Nannis served as a table host at the event, and has agreed to serve on Ayuda’s Advisory Council. Maritza Carmona and Sarah Chu from the firm also attended.
Ayuda’s mission is in its name, to help. Ayuda provides free legal, social work and interpreter services and support for immigrants from 104 countries, 70% of whom are Spanish-speaking. Nannis has supported Ayuda in the past; most recently when she co-sponsored its 44th Anniversary Fundraiser. As the daughter of an immigrant and an attorney who speaks Spanish, Nannis enjoys using her language abilities to help those in need and is committed to fighting for immigrants’ rights in and outside her legal practice.
On August 7, 2017, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, handed down a decision that will open a new avenue of defense to battered spouses in the state – in the extreme case where the spouse hires a hit man to kill the abuser.
The case centered on Karla Louise Porter, who was repeatedly verbally and physically abused by her husband Ray during their 24-year marriage. In 2010, Karla paid someone $400 to kill her husband. She was found guilty of first-degree murder and solicitation to commit murder. At her trial, she asked the court to give a jury instruction that she was entitled to claim “imperfect self-defense,” which would permit the jury to find her guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder. The trial court declined to give the self-defense instruction that she requested.
Although the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the state’s intermediate court, rejected Karla Porter’s claim, the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor in a case that breaks new ground in Maryland law. Maryland courts had previously recognized the existence of the “battered spouse syndrome” and had permitted spouses to claim “imperfect self-defense” if they killed the other spouse when they perceived an imminent or immediate threat, whether or not that fear was an objectively reasonable one.
In this case, the appeals court accepted that principle, saying, “We decline to hold that a woman suffering from battered spouse syndrome must experience abuse within minutes or hours of her defensive action to be entitled to an instruction on imperfect self-defense. Doing so would ignore the reality of intimate partner violence.”
The court went further, though, ruling in its 4-3 opinion that this defense is available to a woman who doesn’t kill her partner with her own hands but hires a killer to do so.
“The means by which a woman takes defensive action against her abuser does not affect whether she actually believed she was in imminent danger at the time of the killing,” the court wrote.
The court noted that the ruling didn’t mean that a woman in Karla Porter’s situation would go free, only that she could be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.
“A woman who acts in imperfect self-defense is certainly not allowed to kill her abusive husband,” the court wrote. “The doctrine of imperfect self-defense permits her to make her case to the jury that she only committed manslaughter—not that she deserves acquittal.”
The decision immediately garnered approval from advocates of battered women and women’s rights advocates in the state.
It will not apply to the vast majority of domestic-violence situations in Maryland. It is not common for an abused spouse to hire a hit man to kill the abuser. But it is an excellent and well-reasoned ruling because it takes into account the reality of what life can be like, on a day-to-day basis, for an abused spouse, and how the spouse can feel that he or she has no options available.
Parenthetically, the four judges in the majority were all of the female judges on the court, while the three in the minority were the male judges. Coincidence?
The court’s ruling can be found here.
The session, titled “What is ‘qui tam’? What every attorney needs to know about the False Claims Act and whistleblower cases,” was held on Thursday, Sept. 14.
His session taught potential relator counsel, as well as in-house counsel, the basics of the False Claims Act and federal whistleblower statutes for the average federal litigator. It included information on how to identify a potential qui tam case, how to identify the five “Basics” of FCA cases and how to develop an understanding of where the potential traps in FCA litigation are.
With over 17,000 members and over 90 chapters nationwide, the Federal Bar Association is dedicated to promoting the welfare, interests, education and professional development of attorneys involved in federal law. Its members range from small to large firms, corporations and federal agencies. The FBA serves as the communication point between the bar and the bench, as well as the private and public sectors.
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. Jay has been lead counsel in several cases that have received national media attention, and has achieved extraordinary success in several high-profile qui tam cases under the False Claims Act that have resulted in settlements of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The story surrounds a False Claims Act decision that came down in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The decision shot down Medicare and Medicaid fraud charges brought against Pediatric Services of America. The judge ruled the whistleblower’s evidence did not pass the materiality requirement of the FCA. Brian commented on how the decision could be troubling for whistleblowers in the future.
Brian is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group who represents employees who have been wrongfully terminated, suffered discrimination at work, or who have been retaliated against for reporting fraud or misconduct. He has distinguished himself as one of the nation’s leading practitioners representing whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act.
Click below for the full article.
The article is titled “3 Questions Facing Employers As DACA Dissolves.” Markovitz expressed doubt that congress will do anything to save DACA.
DACA impacts approximately 800,000 undocumented immigrants, shielding them from deportation and giving them the ability to legally work and attend school. The program was created in 2012, during the Obama administration, for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States while they were still children.
The Trump administration announced Tuesday that they will move to rescind the program, and gave Congress six months to find a legislative solution to protect those affected by the decision. Until then, the administration will continue to renew DACA permits that are nearing their expiry date.
Brian is a principal in JGL’s Civil Litigation Group who represents employees who have been wrongfully terminated, suffered discrimination at work, or who have been retaliated against for reporting fraud or misconduct. He has distinguished himself as one of the nation’s leading practitioners representing whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act. Click below for the full article.
Early this summer, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill (H.R. 1215 the deceptively titled “Protecting Access to Care Act”) that would limit the “non-economic” money damages available to patients in medical malpractice cases nationwide to $250,000. This bill is a “solution” to something that is not a problem and would be harmful to tens of thousands of people who suffer serious injuries every year from mistakes by doctors, hospitals, pharmacists and other health-care providers.
Among other things, the bill would limit noneconomic awards (such as damages for pain and suffering) for medical malpractice to $250,000. That means that people who suffer embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress for the rest of their lives because of a medical error will never be able to receive appropriate compensation for their suffering. As an example, a patient who is horribly disfigured by a medical mistake would be limited to an award of $250,000 because the injury did not “cost” anything.
Interestingly, support and opposition to the bill did not fall along the usual ideological lines. Democrats typically oppose caps on malpractice awards precisely because they are harmful to consumers, and Republicans usually support these caps. Here, however, 19 conservative Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the bill in the House because they felt it was an improper intrusion of the federal government into tort law, which is a state matter.
The bill, which is supported by the Trump administration, passed the House by the slim margin of 218 to 210.
Former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese, who is certainly considered a conservative, sent a letter earlier this year to House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), saying that the bill was a “sweeping effort to federalize tort law with our system of federalism, which reserves that province solely to the states.”
My concerns are somewhat different, but it is good that the bill has found opposition of more than one type.
As I wrote earlier this year on this topic,
The nation is not in the midst of a medical malpractice crisis. Far from it, the system is working quite well. Doctors are paying less for malpractice insurance now than they did in 2001, even after adjusting for inflation. Even without any of these draconian reforms the rate of claims has dropped by half since 2003. . . .
In fact, unlike most malpractice damage cap provisions that have been passed by state legislatures, this bill puts a ceiling on awards to people who have suffered injury from unsafe drugs. As Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice & Democracy at the New York University Law School, wrote in Huffington Post, the bill is “one huge, deceptive gift to the pharmaceutical industry.”
The bill’s prospects in the U.S. Senate are not clear. This month, the Senate will be tackling the national debt ceiling, Hurricane Harvey relief, possibly a comprehensive tax reform package, and other major issues. Regardless of the legislative schedule, this is a pernicious bill that needs to be defeated.
