Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Is Maryland's Labor Climate Improving? It Depends How You Spin It.
Maryland's Department of Labor recently pulled from its website a gloomy report on our State's labor climate (specifically job growth). It subsequently issued a more rosy report. Why? The DLLR claims it was published prematurely. Candidate for Governor, Bob Ehrlich, contends the DLLR fudged the numbers.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Dirty Labor Laundry On-Line
Want to know if your employer is a serial labor law violator? Check The U.S. Department of Labor - Enforcement Data . There, you can search by to see if your employer has previously violated USDOL-enforced labor laws (like the Family and Medical Leave Act and the federal minimum wage and overtime law).
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
How to Apply for Maryland Unemployment Insurance
Many, many clients asks me about the nuts and bolts of filing an unemployment claim. This video published by the State of Maryland does a good job explaining the process.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Winning Attorney's Fees in Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law Cases
On June 8, 2010, I won a $30,769.08 wage payment verdict on behalf of my client (which was 100% of the amount owed). The jury was asked three essential questions:
Because the jury found the employer withheld the money in bad faith I was permitted to seek my client's attorney's fees. Had the jury answered "no" to the second question above, we would not have been permitted to seek my client's attorney's fees under a 2009 Maryland Court of Appeals case.
In the end, the Court awarded my client an additional $36,212.35, 100% of the fees he incurred in obtaining the verdict.
- Did the employer owe my client money and if so, how much? (The answers were, "yes" and "$30,769.08").
- Did the employer withhold the money in bad faith? (The answer was, "yes").
- Do you award the plaintiff additional damages up to three times the amount owed? (The answer was "no").
Because the jury found the employer withheld the money in bad faith I was permitted to seek my client's attorney's fees. Had the jury answered "no" to the second question above, we would not have been permitted to seek my client's attorney's fees under a 2009 Maryland Court of Appeals case.
In the end, the Court awarded my client an additional $36,212.35, 100% of the fees he incurred in obtaining the verdict.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Maryland Whistleblower Success Story
The firm recently won a Section 1983 jury verdict in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The case was unusual in that the firm represented a volunteer firefighter seeking to be reinstated in a Volunteer Fire Department. The client exposed financial mismanagement and safety issues in the firehouse to a citizen who passed the information on to the Montgomery County Council. Up until the day of trial he would have accepted reinstatement as settlement with little or no money. (We unsuccessfully moved to enforce what we believed had been such a settlement shortly before trial). We proved at trial that the Department and Fire Chief terminated him for the disclosures. Although the jury awarded a modest amount in compensatory damages, it affirmatively found that the Department and Fire Chief terminated my client for protected speech. The verdict opened the door to reinstatement and attorney’s fees.
The Court did, in fact, later award my client significant post-trial relief, including: (1) reinstatement; (2) the award of six years of missed pension credits; (3) expungement of all negative information in my client’s personnel file related to his whistle-blowing activity; (4) an injunction against further retaliation and (5) $143,116.78 in attorney’s fees and costs (100% of the fees and costs the firm charged to the client).
The Court did, in fact, later award my client significant post-trial relief, including: (1) reinstatement; (2) the award of six years of missed pension credits; (3) expungement of all negative information in my client’s personnel file related to his whistle-blowing activity; (4) an injunction against further retaliation and (5) $143,116.78 in attorney’s fees and costs (100% of the fees and costs the firm charged to the client).
Monday, August 02, 2010
Employees of Large Retail Employers Entitled to Breaks beginning in March 2011
Back in 2007, I wrote that adult Maryland Employees are not entitled to breaks.
As a result of a new Maryland law that takes effect in March 2011, certain Maryland employees must be given breaks. The law only applies to retail establishmentswith 50 or more employees and excludes wholesalers and restaurants.
As a result of a new Maryland law that takes effect in March 2011, certain Maryland employees must be given breaks. The law only applies to retail establishmentswith 50 or more employees and excludes wholesalers and restaurants.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Triple Damages for Overtime Starting October 1, 2010.
Q: What might you receive if your employer withholds overtime wages in bad faith?
A: Triple damages and attorney's fees (starting October 1, 2010).
The Maryland General Assembly clarified that the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law's definition of wages includes overtime. As such, you might be able to collect three times the amount owed under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.
A: Triple damages and attorney's fees (starting October 1, 2010).
The Maryland General Assembly clarified that the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law's definition of wages includes overtime. As such, you might be able to collect three times the amount owed under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Wrongly classifying workers can land employers in hot water
Here is good article on the dangers of misclassifying employees as independent contractors. Below is the main point (sorry for the horn toot):
Attorney James Rubin has been hearing a lot from underpaid and confused employees lately. Most of them work in construction or landscaping, but Rubin, principal of The Rubin Employment Law Firm PC in [Rockville], says he also is hearing from workers in fields like nursing and government contracting.
These workers have more in common than being confused and underpaid: They are all from Maryland, and many have been improperly classified as contractors when they should be considered employees by the companies that sign their paychecks.
Attorney James Rubin has been hearing a lot from underpaid and confused employees lately. Most of them work in construction or landscaping, but Rubin, principal of The Rubin Employment Law Firm PC in [Rockville], says he also is hearing from workers in fields like nursing and government contracting.
These workers have more in common than being confused and underpaid: They are all from Maryland, and many have been improperly classified as contractors when they should be considered employees by the companies that sign their paychecks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)