Author: JGL Law

Yesterday, a class action complaint was filed in DC Superior Court against Walmart Inc. alleging that by advertising and offering goods without the intent to sell them as offered in their Washington, DC, stores, Walmart violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) (DC Code § 28-3905).

Under the DC CPPA, consumers harmed by unlawful trade practicesmay sue for damages and may be awarded statutory damages of $1,500 per violation. The case was filed on behalf of class member Christina Rector, who is represented by Drew LaFramboise and Veronica Nannis of Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, and Nicole Fiorelli, Frank Bartela, Patrick Perotti and Shmuel Kleinman of Dworken & Bernstein.

“Shoppers rely on price information when making purchasing decisions and have virtually no ability to look across pricing patterns to see statutory violations,” said consumer fraud attorney Drew LaFramboise of Joseph Greenwald & Laake. “We want to ensure that the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act guards purchasers against these unfair and deceptive trade practices.”

To learn more about this latest class action against Walmart, click here to read more.

NBC Washington News interviewed JGL principals Drew LaFramboise and Brian Markovitz and residents of The Signature Club in Accokeek who have filed a class action related to ongoing flooding and sewage backups.

See the interview here.

Today, a class action complaint was filed in US District Court for the District of Maryland by Joseph Greenwald & Laake attorneys Drew LaFramboise and Brian Markovitz. The case was filed on behalf of class members Erica Bell, Xana Colvin, Carlos Colvin and Kymm Watson who are residents of the Signature Club community in Accokeek, Prince George’s County, Maryland.

The complaint alleges that class members’ homes and properties have sustained significant damage from raw sewage backups and flooding. These events began in the summer of 2021 and continue through the present day, and are caused by various construction and design failures by the named defendants, Caruso Homes, Inc., Caruso Signature Club MGT, LLC, NVR, Inc. d/b/a Ryan Homes, Signature 2016 Residential, LLC, Signature Club Homeowners Association, Inc., Vika Maryland, LLC, Delmarva Site Development, Inc., and Airvac, Inc.

The class action alleges that the residents of this community have suffered financial damages and other harms due to the sewage system.  The complaint alleges that because of the issues with the sewage system installed in the community, residents have been over-billed for utilities, been assessed fees and costs to repair and maintain the system, have experienced increased insurance premiums, and have suffered a devaluation of their homes and properties.

Click here to read the full complaint

What is a Reduction in Force (RIF) versus a Layoff? First, it is important to understand that these are business terms, not legal terms, and that outside of some limited exceptions discussed below, there is no legal difference between a RIF and a layoff.

In business terminology, a RIF usually refers to a specific plan to either close down an employer’s worksite; close a department; or otherwise decide to not employee a specific job category. This can include because the employer is outsourcing a job function, switching to contractors, and/or no longer has a need for that line of work. A layoff is usually a process where the employer decides to terminate an employee, and the termination is not due to a specific reason to terminate that employee (such as due to poor performance or misconduct). Usually a layoff will happen to more than one employee at a time, but even a single employee can be subject to a layoff. Often a layoff will include a decision that a certain number of employees need to be laid off for business reasons, or that there will be a layoff of 10% of employees across the board. However, layoff and RIF are not legal terms, and what one employer refers to as a layoff, another employer might refer to as a RIF.

There are times when a RIF verses a layoff may be legal terms. The federal government has specific rules and regulations governing a RIF, and more information about them can be found in this Handbook (PDF) put out by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). State and local governments may have their own regulations, and sometimes union contracts and/or other employee contracts may specify different rules governing a RIF versus a layoff. Finally, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the “WARN Act”) is a federal law that requires most employers with 100 or more employees to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of planned closings and mass layoffs of employees. The details of the WARN Act can be found at 20 C.F.R. § 639.

One common misperception is that if an employer decides to conduct a RIF or a layoff, the employee cannot bring claims of discrimination. Sometimes this misperception is based on the belief that a RIF or a layoff impacts many employees, and therefore cannot be shown to be discrimination against once employee. While this is true in many instances, this is not true as a matter of law, and if you believe you were subject to a RIF and/or layoff for discriminatory reasons, you should consult with an employment attorney. First, the reason that a group of employees were subjected to the RIF/layoff may have been for discriminatory reasons. One example is where the decision to include a specific employee in the RIF/layoff is due to discrimination. For example, the decision to lay off 10% of the department may not be discriminatory, but the decision to include you among the 10% may have been due to discrimination. Another example is if the employer decides to target a specific division or job for a RIF for discriminatory reasons. For example, in the case Breen et. al. v. Chao, et. al., hundreds of Flight Service Controllers for the FAA brought an age discrimination case alleging that the FAA had subjected them to a RIF due to age discrimination, including that FAA officials had described them as “the aging workforce.” (As a full disclosure, I litigated this case, and it resulted in a settlement of $43.8 million, the highest settlement against the federal government in an age discrimination case in history).

When subjecting employees to a RIF and/or layoff, employers generally require employees to sign paperwork. It is important to review it thoroughly, and it is best to contact an employment lawyer if you have any questions.

The divorce and separation laws in Maryland have changed recently, reshaping options available to dissolve marriages. Let’s delve into the distinctions between limited divorce, legal separation, and an annulment.

Limited Divorce

Historically, Maryland provided couples with the choice between a limited divorce and an absolute divorce. A limited divorce allowed individuals to address crucial matters such as child custody, child support, alimony, and financial obligations while maintaining their marital status. This was particularly valuable for those lacking grounds for absolute divorce but needing financial relief and intervention from the court. Recent legal changes in Maryland eliminate the option of limited divorce for new cases raising questions about how the state’s trial and appellate courts will handle cases filed before October 1, 2023.

Legal Separation

Maryland law never formally recognized legal separation; a limited divorce was the closest thing to a legal separation. Despite this, couples can still create separation agreements in situations where reconciliation seems unlikely. These agreements, whether verbal or written, can serve as evidence if the couple later pursues divorce on grounds such as a six-month separation, irreconcilable differences, or mutual consent. Separation agreements address important issues such as child custody, financial support, health insurance, and property division while the spouses live apart. This is a contractual arrangement that can be modified or revoked, with legal consequences for violations.

Annulment

Annulment is a unique and rare legal action that declares a marriage null and void, as if it never existed. Individuals can file for an annulment in the county of residence or where the marriage ceremony took place. However, seeking an annulment is no simple task, as the grounds are challenging to prove. A marriage may be annulled if it is void or voidable.

Void Marriages — A marriage is considered void if, at the time of the ceremony, either party was legally married to someone else (bigamy) or if the parties are blood relatives (incest). Void marriages are always deemed invalid, and legal proceedings can be initiated by either party or a third party to declare the marriage void.

Voidable Marriages — A marriage is voidable if consent was obtained through abduction, fraud, duress, undue influence, or if either party lacked the mental capacity to fully comprehend and consent to the marriage contract (incapacity). Unlike void marriages, voidable marriages remain legally valid until a court declares them invalid, and only the victimized party has the right to challenge the marriage’s validity. If a couple continues to live together after the circumstances that made the marriage voidable cease to exist, the marriage cannot be annulled.

As Maryland’s divorce laws evolve, understanding the nuances of limited divorce, legal separation, and annulment is vital. Couples should carefully consider their circumstances and seek legal counsel to navigate the complexities and determine the most appropriate course of action for their situation.

The Power of Prenuptial Agreements

A prenuptial agreement provides couples with an opportunity to take control of their financial futures in the event of a divorce. By having a prenuptial agreement in place, couples can navigate separation and divorce with confidence and certainty, avoiding reliance on a judge to decide the fate of their assets. Though initiating a conversation about prenuptial agreements can be uncomfortable, the discussion will open communication about finances and set the stage for a healthy marriage.

Who Should Get a Prenuptial Agreement?

While prenuptial agreements can offer financial protection to a wide array of individuals, those in the following scenarios are most encouraged to consider a prenup:

• Significant premarital assets,
• Complicated Estate planning concerns,
• Transitioning employment,
• Pre-existing business interests.

Do I need an attorney?

Because of the nature of a prenuptial agreement, your interests may not necessarily be aligned with that of your soon-to-be spouse. Therefore, you should each retain independent attorneys who can assist you throughout the process.

Getting the Process Started

When discussing a prenuptial agreement with your partner, prioritize transparency and honesty. Communicate about your financial circumstances and how you envision sharing finances and assets during the marriage and in the potential post-marriage. Different approaches include:

1. Basic Discussions:
   • Couples discussing what they would like to see in a prenuptial agreement. Those interests can then be conveyed to attorneys to negotiate, prepare, and finalize agreement.
2. Mediation:
   • Couples sit down with a mediator and their attorneys to review and draft the prenuptial agreement.

Requirements of Prenuptial Agreements

Though there are many specific requirements, generally, a valid prenuptial agreement requires a full financial disclosure from both parties. A full disclosure ensures an accurate and complete understanding of each other’s assets and prevents later claims that essential information was unknown prior to entering into the prenuptial agreement. Additionally, the agreement must fair and reasonable to both parties and must be entered into voluntarily, with both parties having the capacity to understand the implications as well as the opportunity to fully review and understand said terms and implications. This means that prenuptial agreements should be prepared well in advance of a potential marriage to avoid any unnecessary rush. Finally, the agreement should be in writing and signed by both parties.

Limitations

While powerful, generally speaking, prenuptial agreements do have their limitations. It is important to consider limitations placed on prenuptial agreements specific to your state. In Maryland, prenuptial agreements cannot predetermine issues related to child custody and child support nor impose illegal requirements on a party or encourage a divorce.

Updates to your Prenuptial Agreement

Like any contract, prenuptial agreements require adherence to the terms for its intended goals to be achieved. Due to life changes, updates to the agreement to ensure adherence may be necessary to ensure the agreement remains relevant. If you fail to keep your prenuptial agreement updated with major events, you risk having ineffective terms.

Conclusion

A well-drafted and properly executed prenuptial agreement offers couples peace of mind regarding their financial future and helps to simplify disputes should separation and divorce arise. A timely and diligent approach to creating a prenuptial agreement can be challenging but provides significant benefits. If you or someone you know is considering a prenuptial agreement, consultation with an attorney experienced in the preparation of prenups is important. When used wisely, prenuptial agreements can contribute to a secure and transparent financial foundation for a lasting marriage.

Virginia (Gia) Grimm authored one of HR.com’s latest featured articles entitled “Employee Termination: Think Like A Plaintiff’s Attorney.”

While a number of counties in Maryland such as Montgomery and Prince George’s had an existing minimum wage rate higher than the federal minimum wage (which currently sits at $7.25 per hour), as of January 1, 2024, almost all employers in the state of Maryland are now required to compensate their employees at $15.00 an hour.

This new, across-the-board, Maryland state requirement came into effect when Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed Maryland Senate Bill 555, better known as the Fair Wage Act of 2023, into law in April 2023.

Importantly, the exceptions to the Fair Wage Act are very limited. For instance, small employers, defined as those with fourteen or fewer employees, now have to compensate employees at $13.40 an hour, unless required to pay a higher rate by county law or another locality requirement. Additionally, tipped workers must make at least $3.63 an hour (half the federal minimum wage), and with tips, now must earn a minimum of $15.00 an hour. So, if tipped workers are compensated, including with tips, at a rate less than $15.00 an hour, their employers have to fill in the gap until they get to at least $15.00 an hour. Finally, workers under the age of 18 must be paid at least at a rate of 85% of the minimum wage rate or $12.75 an hour.

As always, employers should make sure they are compensating employees consistent with all federal, state, and local laws and other regulatory requirements. Failure to follow all requirements can lead to hefty penalties for employers, including fines and up to double damages on top of the amount of compensation owed to their employees. As the Appellate Court of Maryland explained, employers “doing business in Maryland must be aware of the requirements affecting a Maryland business enterprise, including whether state and federal laws apply.” Pinnacle Grp., LLC v. Kelly, 235 Md. App. 436, 467 (2018).

JGL attorneys Tim Maloney and Kevin Redden represented Gwen Wright, a longtime Montgomery County Planning Board member who was fired. After her termination, the entire Montgomery County Planning Board resigned.

You can read the article here.

The Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion December 20, 2023, in favor of JGL’s client, the developer of the Suffrage Point development in Hyattsville. The Appellate Court determined that the Prince George’s Planning Board had not erred in approving our client’s Preliminary Plan of Subdivision for the development. Senior Counsel Alyse Prawde briefed and argued this case.

The case concerned important issues about the procedure for developers moving through the zoning and subdivision process. The Appellate Court of Maryland found that the pending appeal of the Conceptual Site Plan did not prohibit the Planning Board from approving our client’s Preliminary Plan of Subdivision. The court also determined that there was no requirement in the County’s Zoning Ordinance requiring a preliminary plan of subdivision to conform with a conceptual site plan.

Hear JGL Principal Veronica Nannis speak about the recent $345 Million Settlement Announced 12/19/2023. Veronica was lead counsel on this matter.

Settlement breaks record for largest recovery of its kind in U.S. history 

INDIANAPOLIS, Dec. 19, 2023 – The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) today announced a settlement with Indiana-based Community Health Network (Community) for $345 million for healthcare fraud claims on Medicare. The False Claims Act (FCA) case spanned 2008 to 2020. This historic settlement comes more than nine years after it was first filed. Community must also comply with a Corporate Integrity Agreement, ensuring five years of continual monitoring by the government. This is the second settlement with recidivist offender Community; the first was 2015 for $20.3 million.

The settlement comes after seasoned healthcare finance and operations executive Thomas Fischer sued his former employer, Community. Fischer is a whistleblower, or “relator,” under the FCA, who filed suit on behalf of the government based on detailed insider knowledge of fraud. Fischer’s complaint (PDF) included allegations that Community violated the federal Stark Law, which prohibits payments of any kind – including inflated salaries – to physicians to influence where they treat or refer patients. DOJ supported Fischer, intervening in 2019 with its own complaint (PDF).

Today’s $345 million settlement is reportedly nearly triple the largest prior Stark Law False Claims Act settlement.

“This historic settlement is thanks to the public-private partnership unique to the FCA,” said whistleblower attorney Veronica Nannis of Joseph Greenwald and Laake, which leads Fischer’s team with several other law firms. “Uncovering and prosecuting healthcare fraud takes skill, diligence and meticulous coordination with the government; all on display here.”

DOJ alleged Community illegally paid physicians inflated salaries: “After Bryan Mills became CHN’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO), CHN embarked on an aggressive campaign to recruit physicians for employment.” Its complaint described the physicians’ excessive salaries as a “defensive” tool used to recruit physicians to “secure their referrals.” It warned, the Stark law “plays a key role in ensuring that services are reasonable and necessary, and not provided merely to enrich the parties in a financial relationship at the expense of federal health programs and their beneficiaries.”

Fischer stated, “I am grateful for this recovery. These claims are not mere technicalities; they directly affect patients, hospital employees and the high cost of healthcare. This puts money back into the healthcare system and is a victory for the Indiana taxpayer.”

“The government’s dedication over nearly 10 years is a testament to its commitment to eliminating fraud,” added Jay Holland, counsel for Fischer. Holland lauded the DOJ team, led by Arthur DiDio, and described it as “providing a master class in Stark Law litigation.”

Fischer’s Indianapolis attorney Kathleen DeLaney added, “Our local United States Attorney’s Office, led by Civil Chief Shelese Woods, contributed significantly, and stood by past statements that Medicare fraud will not be tolerated. This is justice served for Indianapolis.”

For DeLaney and Fischer’s other counsel, Tim McCormack, this has been a nearly 10-year journey.

“I could not be prouder of Mr. Fischer’s tenacity,” said McCormack. “Cases like this are vital to keeping financial incentives away from medical judgment. Without a brave insider like Mr. Fischer, willing to speak up, speak out, and then blow the whistle, Community likely would have continued to get away with its fraud.”

Much of the case continues. Today’s settlement is only for intervened claims by the United States. Team Fischer continues to pursue Community for similar fraud under Stark, Anti-kickback, employment and retaliation claims.

The case is U.S. and State of Indiana ex rel Fischer v. Community Health Network, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-1215-RLY-MKK. Fischer is represented by lead counsel Veronica Nannis, Jay Holland and Virginia Grimm, Joseph, Greenwald & Laake; Tim McCormack and Michael Smith, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP; Steve Greenfogel and Bruce Greenberg, Lite DePalma; and local and employment counsel Kathleen DeLaney, DeLaney & DeLaney LLC. The government’s team is led by Arthur DiDio of the DOJ, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana Zachary A. Myers and Civil Chief for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Indiana, Shelese Woods.