tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-263174592024-03-17T22:01:05.160-05:00Maryland Employment LawAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.comBlogger212125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-91396396034564660952020-02-21T14:55:00.001-05:002020-02-21T14:55:19.279-05:00The Long Arms of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection LawThe Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law is worker protection statute. It requires the payment of earned wages. If an employer does not pay, the employee can collect <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/search/label/Triple%20Damages">triple damages if he or she can prove the wages are withheld in bad faith</a>. The Law applies to employees who work <i>in Maryland</i>. <br />
<br />
But how much work must an employee perform <i>in Maryland</i>? Employees often spend time in more than one jurisdiction here in the "<a href="https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dmv">DMV</a>." That questions was largely answered in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=480617044685294518&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Himes Associates v. Anderson</a>. There, the employee, Mr. Anderson lived in Maryland but worked for a Virginia employer and spent most of his work time in that state. Mr. Anderson was tasked with overseeing the construction of a building in Virginia, but, as a part of those responsibilities, he was required to present a proposal in Baltimore and attend meetings twice a month in that city. On two other occasions, the employee was asked to visit a work site in Gaithersburg and work on a project in Aberdeen.<br />
<br />
As it turns out the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law has long arms. An employer is subject to the Maryland Law if instructs an employee to be present at a work site. According to the Court, "[t]he plain language . . . covers the situation in which a company outside of Maryland directs its employee to go to a work site in Maryland." Because the employee attended meetings twice a month in Baltimore, the Court concluded that the Virginia employer is subject to the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.<br />
<br />
This case, Himes Associates, could well be applied to an employee who works from home in Maryland for an out-of-state employer. I suspect we will be seeing such a case in the near future.<br />
<br />
Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-50779920479407200162019-09-12T13:45:00.000-05:002019-09-12T13:52:56.507-05:00Two Maryland Non-Compete Clauses And A Magic Blue Pencil. <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #373739; font-size: 12px;">Aerotek filed suit in Maryland against a former employee alleging she violated a non-compete agreement. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7278545575097925936&q=Aerotek+v.+Obercian,&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006&as_vis=1"> Aerotek v. Obercian, </a></span><span style="color: #373739;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7278545575097925936&q=Aerotek+v.+Obercian,&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006&as_vis=1">377 F. Supp. 3d 539 (D. Md. 2019</a></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #373739; font-size: 12px;"><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7278545575097925936&q=Aerotek+v.+Obercian,&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006&as_vis=1">)</a>. The employee had significant customer contact while working for Aerotek. The agreement contains two non-compete clauses that generally prohibit this employee, for 1 year post-termination, from: </span><span style="color: #373739;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">(1) performing business similar to that which she performed at Aerotek and (2) working for any business that is engaging in a business similar to Aerotek's.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #373739; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br />Can you guess which clause the Court found enforceable and which it found was not?</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #373739; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #373739; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">The Court found Clause 1 facially enforceable because it is plausibly directed at a<a href="http://www.md-employment-law.com/2007/03/non-competes-are-only-enforceable-if.html"> legally protectable interest</a>. That interest, according to the Court, is ensuring that a departing employee does not steal the employer's customers. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #373739; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #373739; font-size: 12px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Court found Clause 2 facially unenforceable because it prohibited Aerotek's former employee from working for a competitor, even if she was not doing competitive work. This is sometimes called the, "janitor test." Clause 2 is unenforceable because it prevents Aerotek's former employee from working as a janitor for a competitor. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #373739; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #373739; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">When a non-compete agreement contains two or more divisible clauses, the Court use a magic "Blue Pencil." That means, the Court can re-write the Agreement to excise unenforceable clauses and keep the enforceable ones. And, that is what the Court did.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #373739; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #373739;"><span style="font-size: 12px;">But the Court also ruled that it was not clear whether the employee's work at her new job is competitive to the work she performed for Aerotek or whether she stole any Aerotek customers. As such, the Court denied </span></span><span style="color: #373739; font-size: 12px;">Aerotek.'s motion for summary judgment. A jury will now decide the dispute. (A jury will also decide whether this employee violated a non-solicitation clause and whether she is entitled to damages on a counter-claim she filed for a bonus).</span><br />
<span style="color: #373739; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #373739; font-size: 12px;">(Updated to note: this case settled before trial).</span><br />
<span style="color: #373739; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #373739; font-family: "verdana";"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #373739; font-family: "verdana";"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><br /></span></span>Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-5099252650726888932019-06-13T14:29:00.001-05:002019-06-13T14:29:53.369-05:00New Maryland Law Broadens Protections Against Workplace HarrassmentA new <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/hb/hb0679e.pdf">law</a>, that takes effect October 1, 2019, expands the protections Marylanders have against workplace <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/2012/08/harassed-at-work-in-maryland-here-are.htmlhttps://www.md-employment-law.com/2012/08/harassed-at-work-in-maryland-here-are.html">harassment</a>. The new law:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Allows <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/2019/01/varying-independent-contractor-tests.html">independent contractors</a> to claim workplace harassment.</li>
<li>Extends the time for individuals to file administrative claims for workplace harassment to two years (up from 180 days). </li>
<li>Expands the scope of our State's anti-discrimination law to employers with one or more employees (down from 15 employees). </li>
<li>Clarifies that harassment based on the following is prohibited: race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.</li>
</ul>
Facing workplace harassment? Consult a Maryland Employment attorney.Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-77304585990478507962019-05-23T13:53:00.000-05:002019-05-23T13:53:02.192-05:00Law Limiting Non-Compete Agreements in Maryland to Take Effect October 1, 2019The Maryland General Assembly passed a <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/bills/sb/sb0328e.pdf">law</a> rendering unenforceable non-compete agreement as applied to certain lower wage employees. The law renders void non-compete agreements that attempt to restrict competition by employees earning equal to or less than $15.00 per hour or $31,200 annually. The new law, for the most part, codifies the existing state of affairs in Maryland under decision law. That law makes clear that only a <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/2011/01/you-may-not-be-within-class-of.html">narrow class of employees may lawfully be covered by such an agreement.</a> <br />
<br />Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-64280332234684804522019-01-28T12:57:00.001-05:002019-01-28T12:57:52.010-05:00Varying Independent Contractor Tests Apply to Maryland EmployeesEmployees in Maryland enjoy our broad array of worker protection statutes. Employees may qualify for <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/2015/10/blog-post.html">sick leave and parental leave</a>. They can sue for <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/search/label/Overtime">overtime</a> and lost wages (and may be eligible for <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/search/label/Triple%20Damages">triple damages</a>). They may be eligible for unemployment. Employers, of course, are required to withhold <a href="https://www.irs.gov/payments/tax-withholding">income</a> and <a href="https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751">payroll taxes</a> for their employees.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Independent contractors get bupkis (nothing). They likely have to pay <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/self-employment-tax-social-security-and-medicare-taxes">self-employment tax</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This disparity in rights creates an incentive for employer to push individuals toward being classified as independent contractors. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But, could you be an employee for one purpose and an independent contractor for another? The answer is, "<b>yes</b>." That is because there are different independent contractor tests for different statutes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The broadest test is called the "ABC" test because all three prongs of the test must be met. It applies to claims for <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/2017/10/maryland-misclassification-cases-often.html">unemployment</a> and the <a href="http://www.dllr.state.md.us/workplace/">Maryland Workplace Fraud Act</a> (which only applies in the construction and landscaping industries). To be an independent contractor under this test the employee must be:</div>
<div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>free from control and direction;</li>
<li>performing work in his or own business or occupation; and</li>
<li>either (i) performing work that is different than the business of the person for whom the work is performed; or (ii) performing the work in a different location than the person for whom the work is performed.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A narrower "economic realities" test applies to most other Maryland statutes. This flexible approach focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the business to which he renders. It looks at </div>
<div>
<div>
<br />
<ul>
<li>the degree of control that the employer has over the manner in which the work is performed;</li>
<li>the worker's opportunities for profit or loss dependent on his managerial skill;</li>
<li>the worker's investment in equipment or material, or his employment of other workers;</li>
<li>the degree of skill required for the work;</li>
<li>the permanence of the working relationship; and</li>
<li>the degree to which the services rendered are an integral part of the putative employer's business.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Though similar to the economic realities test, the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee">IRS</a> and the <a href="https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582a96a9c">NLRB</a> have their own tests as well. What should one do to navigate this forest of varying and multi-factored tests? Of course, my advice on this is to seek some professional advice. You might be surprised that you qualify as an employee for one purpose but not another.<br />
<br />
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-72107293531298451512019-01-18T12:02:00.001-05:002019-01-18T13:38:46.300-05:00New Maryland Law Makes General Contractors Liable for Unpaid Wages Owed by Sub-ContractorsAs of October 1, 2018, under a new <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/Chapters_noln/CH_17_sb0853e.pdf">law</a>, general contractors in the construction industry are liable for wage theft by their sub-contractors. General contractors are liable regardless of whether they control the sub-contractor's employees. This new law broadens the possible defendants in a claim under the Wage Payment and Collection Law. An employee in the construction industry may file <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/search/label/Maryland%20Wage%20Lien%20Act">for a lien</a>, and may sue his direct employer, the <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/2012/11/individuals-may-be-liable-under.html">individual owner</a> of the company he or she works for, and - now - the general contractor. The Law allows for <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/search/label/Triple%20Damages">triple damages</a> and <a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/2011/01/recent-decision-attorneys-fees-under.html">attorney's fees</a> if the employee can prove that wages were withheld in bad faith. Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-52879665462600586322019-01-15T14:13:00.001-05:002019-01-15T14:13:59.304-05:00 Maryland's “Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018"Maryland has a new law effective October 1, 2018, called the Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act. One of the Act's main provisions says this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #373739; font-family: verdana; font-size: 12px;">Except as prohibited by federal law, a provision in an employment contract, policy, or agreement that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy to a claim that accrues in the future of sexual harassment or retaliation for reporting or asserting a right or remedy based on sexual harassment is null and void as being against the public policy of the State.</span></blockquote>
What does this mean? Some employers require that employees sign employments agreements that limit the employees' ability to pursue their legal claims. One example is a provision waiving an employee's right to a trial by jury in any future claim against his or her employer. Such a provision "waives" a "procedural right" for "asserting" a claims "based on sexual harassment. Under this new law, the provision is void. <br />
<br />
Employment agreements and employee handbooks attempt to limit employment claims in all kinds of different ways, including ways that may appear neutral on their face. For example, a provision in an agreement might select a different State's law to apply to employment-based claims. Such a choice-of-law provision could well be viewed as waiving a Maryland claim (<a href="https://www.md-employment-law.com/2019/01/choice-of-law-provision-likely.html">as is the case for claims under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law</a>).<br />
<br />
One issue that will likely arise soon is whether a mandatory arbitration clause is void under this new law. Such clauses are generally governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. The meaning of the new law's introductory phrase, "except as prohibited by federal," could be put to the test. A Court would have to determine whether Federal law prevails and preempts the effect of the new Maryland law. Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-44245844588826056032019-01-14T11:16:00.001-05:002019-01-18T16:51:55.674-05:00Costs To Defend Against Alleged Non-Compete Violations Often Drive Employee Decisions (Even if the Agreement is Likely Unenforceable)I have reviewed many, many non-compete agreements over the course of my career. A very large portion of them are likely unenforceable under existing Maryland law. The agreements are overbroad, do not protect a <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/non-competes-are-only-enforceable-if.html">legitimate business interest</a>, purport to apply to an employee <a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/you-may-not-be-within-class-of.html">who cannot be covered</a>, or contain terms that are <a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2006/06/liquidated-damages-clause-in-non.html">presumptively unlawful</a>. Employers often demand that low-wage employees sign obviously unenforceable non-compete agreements as a condition of employment. For example, the sandwich shop, Jimmy John's, required that many of its sandwich makers sign non-compete agreements (until it recently <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-clauses-following-settlement.html">stopped this practice</a>). <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The costs to an employer of requiring non-compete agreements is nominal. The agreement becomes just another form to be signed. Many employees do not dwell on these forms -- often because they need the job. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the costs to the employee can be great when he or she seeks to change jobs. The mere threat of lawsuit will often drive the employee to comply (and decline the job offer that he or she otherwise would have accepted). That is because the costs of defending one of these agreement <a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-employment-lawyers-charge-their.html">can be expensive</a>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
An employee faced with threatened enforcement of non-compete should contact a lawyer. There are ways <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2006/10/q-can-you-leverage-your-way-out-of.html">to leverage your way out of such agreements</a>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Legislators have attempted to address this issue over the years. Already in the Legislative Session, <a href="http://www.alcarr.org/">Al Carr</a>, introduced <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2019RS/fnotes/bil_0008/hb0038.pdf">HB38</a> (link to fiscal note). It would render void non-compete agreements signed by employees making $15 per hour or less per hour or $31,200 or less per year. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you are facing threatened enforcement of a non-compete agreement, you should review<a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-to-do-when-you-are-threatened-with.html"> this post</a> and reach out to an attorney. </div>
Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-55735602596754276322019-01-10T14:01:00.000-05:002019-01-14T10:39:01.973-05:00Hiring An Employment Attorney<div>
If you are searching for an employment attorney, you most likely have come across lawyer marketing material. These materials include pay-per-click ads, videos, testimonials, and websites. The message of these ads usually is some variation of: <i>sue your former employer using our law firm because it is the most aggressive, knowledgeable, and experienced in the area</i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But this message is at odds with the advice most good employment lawyers give their potential clients facing litigation: there are risks and uncertainty ahead; the legitimate grounds for employment law claims are narrow; the law is complex; and the system is, at times, unpredictable. Even when a client has a good claim, he or she will fighting an employer that likely has greater resources than the client. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A potential client should look beyond the lawyer marketing messages. He or she should seek out the best possible lawyer for the situation. A potential client should do the research. In outline form below, I set forth some tangible and intangible ways a potential client can do just that. </div>
<div>
</div>
<ul>
<li><i>Tangibles</i></li>
<ul>
<li>Is the lawyer licensed? In Maryland check <a href="https://mdcourts.gov/lawyers/attylist">here</a>. </li>
<li>Has the lawyer been disciplined? In Maryland check <a href="https://mdcourts.gov/attygrievance/sanctions">here</a>. </li>
<li>How long has the lawyer been practicing? </li>
<li>Have clients posted public reviews? <a href="http://www.avvo.com/">Avvo</a> is a good place to look for answers.</li>
<li>How many cases has the lawyer filed and has he or she taken any to verdict and judgment? Though the records can be difficult to decipher, <a href="http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/">Maryland State Court Case docket</a> information and <a href="http://www.pacer.gov/">Federal Court case information</a> (registration and fees required) are available.</li>
<li>Does the lawyer really focus his or her practice on employment law?</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Intangibles</li>
<ul>
<li>Meet with the potential lawyer in person if possible. </li>
<li>Is the lawyer (not just the staff) easy to reach by phone and electronic mail?</li>
<li>Does the lawyer appear worthy of your trust?</li>
<li>Is the lawyer willing to give you examples of his or her past experience?</li>
<li>Is the lawyer willing to give you an estimate of the costs going forward?
</li>
<li>Expect to pay for good representation. Seek out attorneys who are willing to take <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-employment-lawyers-charge-their.html">a flexible approach to billing arrangements</a>. </li>
<li>Written retainer agreements are a must.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
</ul>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com02-98 S Washington St, Rockville, MD 20850, USA39.0839973 -77.152757838.9853388 -77.3106863 39.1826558 -76.9948293tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-91453874095424648252019-01-10T10:44:00.000-05:002019-01-10T10:44:54.124-05:00Choice of Law Provision Likely Unenforceable If It Causes a Maryland Employee to Forfeit Earned WagesChoice of Law provisions are common in employment contracts and pay plans. They state that the parties choose that a certain state's law (i.e., New York, New Jersey) will apply should there ever be a dispute over the meaning of the contract or pay plan. <br />
<br />
Maryland has several employee-favorable worker protection statutes, including the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). The MWPCL allows employees to collect <a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Commissions">earned commissions</a> and allows for <a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Triple%20Damages">triple damages</a> if wages are withheld in bad faith. <br />
<br />
One could see how an employer might want to avoid the MWPCL. One way an employer could do that is through a Choice of Law provision. The employer could say, "This pay plan will be interpreted in accordance with Laws of New York [or some other law.]" For many years, Court in Maryland enforced these provisions.<br />
<br />
But in a case called, <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-appeals/1690538.html">Cunningham v. Feinberg</a>, the Maryland Court of Appeals stated the Maryland Legislature signaled that the policy underlying the MWPCL was so important that it could not be waived through a choice of law provision. A good example of the effect this has had is this decision in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/blanch-v-chubb-sons-inc">Blanch v. Chubb & Sons</a>, in which a Judge reversed herself on the application of a Choice of Law Provision because of Cunningham.<br />
<br />
Bottom line, if you work in Maryland, the MWPCL applies to you.Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-39514677613541745442019-01-09T16:40:00.001-05:002019-01-09T16:40:59.898-05:00Maryland Non-Compete Agreement Unenforceable As Applied to Salespeople Processing Competitive Bids<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/1423s17.pdf">Here</a>, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that a company's non-compete agreement was unenforceable as it applied to two salespeople. The Court reasoned that because the sales at issue "were won or lost on competitive bids, not sales relationships," the employer had no <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/non-competes-are-only-enforceable-if.html">legally protectable interest</a> in enforcing the agreement. The Court relied heavily on a Ecology Services v. Clym Environmental to hold that the salespeople <a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/you-may-not-be-within-class-of.html">did not fall within the class of employees</a> who can covered by a non-compete agreement in Maryland.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If your employer seeks to enforce a non-compete agreement, check these posts: </span><br />
<div style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-to-do-when-you-are-threatened-with.htm">What to do when you are threatened with a non-compete lawsuit.</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2006/10/q-can-you-leverage-your-way-out-of.html"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Q: Can you leverage your way out of a Maryland Non-Compete? A: Maybe.</span></a></div>
Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-9636678816015404192019-01-09T09:32:00.000-05:002019-01-18T16:51:33.871-05:00James Edward Rubin - jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com- (301) 760-7914<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<strong style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMnoUZiTcW6WHqmfg60atooSDnPL4DRyEVvvQY6fzKzDKhh-yepU_RidRZ0z3YlRq_fAgZmExe2PbpMcxQLHGOyyHjW9lnzv0iT_qnVgewakFUh5Qgjy6fUaX5FfKE_H3ocs7mPw/s1600/photo.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="683" data-original-width="683" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMnoUZiTcW6WHqmfg60atooSDnPL4DRyEVvvQY6fzKzDKhh-yepU_RidRZ0z3YlRq_fAgZmExe2PbpMcxQLHGOyyHjW9lnzv0iT_qnVgewakFUh5Qgjy6fUaX5FfKE_H3ocs7mPw/s320/photo.JPG" width="320" /></a></strong></div>
<strong style="background-color: white; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> </strong><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">J</span></span>ames E. Rubin is the founding partner of The Rubin Employment Law Firm, P.C. Before founding the firm, Mr. Rubin was a partner in a labor and employment boutique, where he managed the firm's employment litigation practice. Mr. Rubin also served as an associate with Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yellig, where he represented national and local unions. He received his undergraduate degree from Penn State University (1993) and his law degree from the University of Pittsburgh (1996).<br />
<br />
<div>
Notable accomplishments include:<br />
<br />
• Winning a complex First Amendment retaliation jury trial, recovering compensatory damages and 100% of claimed attorney’s fees ($143,116.78).<br />
<br />
• Winning summary judgment in favor of employee accused of violating non-compete agreement, and <a href="https://courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/1423s17.pdf">affirmance on appeal.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
• Winning an $880,000 jury verdict on behalf of a <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Commissions">commissioned salesperson</a>.<br />
<br />
• Defeating motions to enforce a<a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Non-Competes"> non-compete agreement</a> at temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction hearings.<br />
<br />
• Winning class certification and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/23/AR2010032303817.html">summary judgment</a> motions in an <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Overtime">overtime</a> collective action on behalf of ticket office employees against the Washington Redskins.<br />
<br />
• Litigating a settlement opt-in collective action on behalf of dealership employees seeking minimum wage payments.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
• Obtaining a double damages verdict in a suit brought under the <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Maryland%20Wage%20Payment%20and%20Collection%20Law">Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law</a>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Mr. Rubin frequently lectures on, and is frequently quoted as an expert on Maryland Employment Law. See, <br />
<a href="http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/04/pending-law-will-ban-employer-facebook-password-queries/">Pending Law Will Ban Employer Facebook Password Queries</a>; <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-md-co-pension-eeoc-20121022,0,6651286.story">Judge Rules Balto. Co. Pension System Discriminates Based on Age</a>; <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/print-edition/2011/12/02/non-competes-give-businesses-piece-of.html">Non-competes give businesses piece of mind while protecting their interests</a>; <br />
<a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/03/01/smallb1.html">Wrongly Classifying Workers Can Land Employers in Hot Water</a>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He has maintained an <a href="http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/20850-md-james-rubin-1561123.html">Avvo rating of 10.0</a> and was selected as a <a href="http://www.superlawyers.com/maryland/lawyer/James-E-Rubin/1ef8befc-708f-4043-8925-12970110f9b8.html">SuperLawyer</a> in both Maryland and the District of Columbia. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-8649868402377372402018-08-16T14:40:00.000-05:002018-08-16T14:40:24.077-05:00Can Severance Pay Be a "Wage" under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law? Maybe! <span style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Severance pay falls into two legal baskets under Maryland law.</span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: whitesmoke;">S</span><span style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">everance pay earned for an employee's labor or work. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Severance pay awarded in exchange for something other than work, most commonly in exchange for a covenant not to compete or in exchange for a waiver of claims.</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">Back in 2003, in </span><a href="http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2004/802s03.pdf" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #888888; font-size: 13.2px;">Stevenson v. BB&T</a>, <span style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;"> the Court of Appeals ruled that </span>severance for labor <i>is</i> <i>a "wage" </i>subject to the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Severance for a non-compete or waiver is <em style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;">not</em><span style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-size: 13.2px;"> a wage subject to the Wage Payment and Collection Law. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">Does this matter? It sure does. Wages subject to the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law can be <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Triple%20Damages">tripled </a>(if withheld in bad faith).</span><br />
<span style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: whitesmoke; font-size: 13.2px;">In <a href="https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2018/1962s16.pdf">Blood v. Columbus U.S.</a> (April 2018) the Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently followed <i>Stevenson</i>: money paid in exchange for a period of non-competition </span></span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">is not a wage “due for work" and therefore not subject to the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.</span>Rubin Employment Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09258051397478831372noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-54868354582181314212017-10-02T16:06:00.001-05:002017-10-02T16:06:38.754-05:00Maryland Misclassification Cases Often Start with a Claim for UnemploymentWhere can Maryland employees misclassified as independent contractors go to file a claim? The <a href="https://www.dllr.state.md.us/employment/unemployment.shtml">unemployment</a> office is one place they can go (after they are terminated from the job).<br />
<br />
Maryland's unemployment law has a <a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2007/04/are-you-really-independent-contractor.html">restrictive test</a> for employment status. You are a presumed to be an employee unless:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>You are free from direction and control;</li>
<li>You are engaged in an independent business that is of the same nature as the work your are performing; and</li>
<li>You are performing the work is outside the usual course of business of the person for whom it is performed OR the work is performed outside any place of business of the person for whom it is performed.</li>
</ul>
<div>
A 2016 law, called the "<a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/Chapters_noln/CH_342_sb0090t.pdf">Recovery of Benefits and Penalties for Fraud Act</a>," provides for penalties if an employer knowingly misclassifies an employee. In addition, the Act requires that if Maryland's Unemployment Office finds that an employer has misclassified an employee it must notify the tax collector (the Comptroller) and the Workers Compensation Commission. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-45337460084675244122017-09-28T09:28:00.000-05:002018-08-27T15:57:15.269-05:00Maryland Paid Sick Leave Law Vetoed by Govenor Hogan - Update - Veto Overridden! Update - The General Assembly voted to overrider the veto. See this helpful <a href="https://www.dllr.state.md.us/paidleave/paidleaveposter.shtml">link on Maryland's sick leave law</a>.<br />
<br />
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br />
On May 25, 2017, Governor Hogan <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/veto_letters/hb0001.pdf">vetoed</a> the "<a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/hb/hb0001e.pdf">Maryland Healthy Working Families Act</a>." This Act would have mandated that private-sector employers who employ more than 15 employees provide paid sick leave. Employees would have earned 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours that they worked. But, as noted, Governor Hogan vetoed the Act.<br />
<br />
Had the bill not been vetoed, it would have preempted the one Maryland jurisdiction that has a paid sick leave law. That is Montgomery County, which has passed the <a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2015/10/montgomery-county-employers-will-be.html">Earned Sick and Safe Leave Law.</a><br />
<br />
Governor Hogan claims to support a version of paid sick leave, but would limit it to employers with more than 50 employees and would offset the costs through tax incentives. Governor Hogan established a "<a href="https://www.dllr.state.md.us/paidleave/">Committee on Paid Leave</a>" to study how best to implement paid leave. <br />
<br />
Maryland's leave laws are summarized in this <a href="https://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2015/10/blog-post.html">chart</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-70984919647812365402015-11-06T11:12:00.000-05:002015-11-06T11:12:10.127-05:00Maryland False Claims Act of 2015: State Law Protection for WhistleblowersThe <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/chapters_noln/Ch_165_sb0374T.pdf">Maryland False Claims Act</a> took effect June 1, 2015. The main provisions of the Act: <div>
<ol>
<li>Prohibit a person from knowingly making a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval by the government; </li>
<li>Permit a private citizen to file a civil action on behalf of the government against a person who has made a false claim; </li>
<li>Require the court to award a certain percentage of the proceeds of the action to the private citizen initiating the action; and </li>
<li>Prohibit retaliatory actions by a person against an employee, contractor, or grantee for disclosing a false claim or engaging in other false claims-related activities.</li>
</ol>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
For employees and contractors, the Act provides two avenues to pursue relief. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>"Qui-Tam Claims." </i> An employee who discovers a false claim can pursue a civil action on behalf of a governmental entity. Such a civil action must be filed under seal and remain under seal for 60 to allow the governmental to review it. The case only goes forward if the government chooses to pursue the claim. If the governmental wins, the court must award the private party not less than 15% and not more than 25% of the proceeds, and in certain circumstances not more than 10% of the proceeds, proportional to the amount of time and effort that the party contributed to the final resolution of the action. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>"Retaliation Claims</i>." Employees and contractors who investigate, initiate, testify in, or assist a lawful action against a fraud are protected if they disclose a fraud to a supervisor or the government. They are also protected when they refuse to engage in a fraud against the state. Victims of retaliation may sue to seek an injunction to stop the retaliation. They also may get double their back pay and punitive damages. The law provides a statute of limitations of at least three years.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Employee/whistle-blowers considering pursuing either avenue to relief should consult counsel since this can a difficult area to navigate.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-35908966676654904222015-10-28T10:55:00.003-05:002015-10-28T10:55:33.377-05:00Minimum Wage Increases in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties effective October 1, 2015.Effective October 1, 2015, the minimum wage in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties went up to $9.55 per hour. For the other counties in Maryland, the minimum wage is $8.25. <a href="http://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/wages/wagehrfacts.shtml">Here</a> is the Maryland Department of Labor's minimum wage site. Here is the Maryland Department of Labor's <a href="http://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/wages/wagehrfacts.shtml">minimum wage site</a>. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-14633150138831322182015-10-14T14:41:00.001-05:002015-10-14T14:57:34.355-05:00Chart Summarizing Maryland's Leave LawsI have been doing some thinking about Maryland's Leave Laws. I put together a very simplistic summary to keep the laws straight in my mind. I pasted it below and hope that it helps!<iframe height="350" src="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yO8NkSA1dbnBl4aSLIYzCkzTjSeBCSLTk1kBMYs7L7A/pub?embedded=true" width="600"></iframe>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-37828980583741345122015-10-08T14:49:00.003-05:002015-10-08T14:49:13.869-05:00The Maryland Parental Leave Act The <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/bills/sb/sb0737e.pdf">Maryland Parental Leave Act</a> requires requires employers with 15 to 49 employees to provide employees with unpaid
parental leave.<br />
<br />
An eligible employee may take up to a total of six weeks of parental leave in a 12-month period for the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child.<br />
<br />
During parental leave, the employer must maintain existing coverage for a group health plan<br />
<br />
To be eligible for parental leave, an employee must have worked for the employer for at least one year and for 1,250 hours in the previous 12 months. An eligible employee is generally required to provide the employer with 30-day prior notice of parental leave.<br />
<br />
If the employer provides paid leave to employees, the employer may require that the employee substitute the paid leave for any part of or all of the period of
parental leave.<br />
<br />
The Act provides a private cause of action for damages caused by an
employer’s noncompliance. If a court determines that an employee is entitled to
judgment in an action, the court must award reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs of
the action to the employee. <br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-61623297938463592552015-10-08T14:13:00.000-05:002015-10-14T14:31:32.821-05:00Montgomery County Employers Will Be Required to Provide Paid Sick Leave Beginning October 1, 2016 Montgomery County is one of the few jurisdictions that require all employers provide paid sick leave. That is the law under the <a href="https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/bill/2014/20150623_60-14.pdf">Earned Sick and Safe Leave Act</a> passed by the Montgomery County Council. <br />
<br />
All employees will be entitled to accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked. Employers with five or more employees must provide up to 56 hours per year of paid sick leave to employees. Employers with less than five employees are required to provide up to 32 hours of paid sick leave and twenty-four hours of unpaid sick and safe leave per year. <br />
<br />
The permissible uses of sick leave are broad. They include:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Treating the employee’s own illness; </li>
<li>Attending preventative medical appointments; and</li>
<li>Caring for a covered individual with an illness.</li>
</ul>
<div>
The Act contains and anti-retaliation provision and a complaint procedure. As noted, the Act becomes effective October 1, 2016.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-1723902554787368572014-10-10T13:28:00.002-05:002014-10-10T14:17:40.941-05:00Maryland's Highest Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Two Employment Law Cases in November 2014The Maryland Court of Appeals (our highest Court) will hear oral argument in two employment law cases <a href="http://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals/schedule/201411schedule.html">in November 2014</a>. <br />
<br />
In Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300 v. Lovelace, the Court is reviewing whether a disgruntled union officer's court claims against his union are barred because he has a remedy through an internal procedure. <a href="http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/1020s12.pdf">The Court of Special Appeals ruled</a> that because the internal procedure did not allow the union officer to collect damages, the procedure were "inadequate" and no bar to a court proceeding.<br />
<br />
In Cunningham v. Matthew Feinberg, the Court is reviewing whether the doctrine of <i>lex loci contractus</i> precludes a claim under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The doctrine means that when deciding a question of interpretation and validity of a contract provisions, the Maryland courts ordinarily should apply the law of the jurisdiction where the contract was made. The Court of Special Appeals decision is unpublished and I have not read it yet. I am guessing that the case involves an employer's claim that it reached a deal with an employee in some state other than Maryland, and, therefore, the other state's law applies to the employee's wage claim. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-930444538320921412014-09-04T15:12:00.001-05:002014-09-04T15:13:27.021-05:00Maryland Department of Labor Publishes Regulations Implementing Wage Lien ActThe Maryland Department of Labor (DLLR) recently published <a href="http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=09.12.39.*">regulations implementing</a> the <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gle&section=3-1101&ext=html&session=2014RS&tab=subject5">Wage Lien Act</a>. The regs track the language of the statute, but to a good job explaining how to file a wage lien. <br />
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>An employee starts the process by serving on the employer a "<a href="http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=09.12.39.02.htm">Notice of Claim for Unpaid Wages</a>." The <a href="http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=09.12.39.02.htm">regulation</a> specifies eight pieces of information that must be on the Notice, including: (a) The basis for the claim that wages were due but were not paid; (b) the monetary amount of the lien sought; (c) the real or personal property, or both, against which the lien is sought along with a description adequate to identify the property, name of owner, and location; and (d) notice to the employer of their right to dispute the lien by filing a complaint within 30 days of receipt of the notice. Service can be accomplished by certified mail requesting, “Restricted Delivery—Show to whom, date, and address of delivery.” </li>
<li>If the employer disagrees with the Notice, <a href="http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=09.12.39.03.htm">the employer can file suit</a>. The suit must contain an explanation of why the wages claimed by the employee are not due and owing by the employer. </li>
<li>If the Lien is either not disputed or established in Court, the employee can then file a "<a href="http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=09.12.39.04.htm">Wage Lien Statement."</a> The <a href="http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=09.12.39.04.htm">Statement</a> must include: A description of the property; the name of the property owner; the monetary amount of the lien; A copy of the Notice for Unpaid Wages; and a copy of the Order establishing the lien for unpaid wages if the lien for unpaid wages is established in a court.</li>
</ol>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-32010534173388293322014-08-19T14:36:00.000-05:002014-08-19T14:36:57.469-05:00Maryland's Highest Court Rules That Triple Damages are Recoverable for Unpaid OvertimeI have long <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2014/06/q-does-maryland-wage-payment-and.html">tracked</a> the <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2013/03/triple-damages-for-overtime-update.html">debate</a> over whether <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Triple%20Damages">triple</a> damages are recoverable for overtime under the <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Maryland%20Wage%20Payment%20and%20Collection%20Law">Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law</a>. Maryland's highest Court, the Court of Appeals, put the issue to bed in <a href="http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2014/86a13.pdf">Muriel Peters v. Early Healthcare Giver, Inc.</a> The Court ruled (as predicted) that triple damages are recoverable for unpaid overtime. The Court ruled that way because in 2010 the Maryland General Assembly <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2010/07/triple-damages-for-overtime-starting.html">amended the law to add the word</a> "overtime" to the definition of wages. Several Federal Court decisions, nonetheless, held that triple damages were not recoverable if they were never promised to the employee. The Maryland Court of Appeals rejected those cases and held triple damages are available for unpaid overtime.<br />
<br />
The Court in Peters also held:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>A judge or jury must first find that the employer withheld the employee's wages in bad faith before awarding additional -- up to triple -- damages to the employee; </li>
<li>There is no outright presumption in favor of an award of enhanced damages; </li>
<li>The employer has the initial burden to prove it withheld wages in good faith. The burden then shifts to the employee who must ultimately persuade the judge or jury that the employer withheld the wages in bad faith; and</li>
<li>The maximum award the plaintiff can receive is three times the unpaid wages. If the employee is owed $1 in wages, the maximum he or she can recover is $3 (there had been an argument that he or she should be able to recover $4 -- the owed wages plus triple damages). </li>
</ul>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-30926295586671969282014-06-23T14:10:00.000-05:002014-09-04T14:53:40.781-05:00Q. Does the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law permit triple damages for overtime? (Update: Yes)A. I believe that the answer is yes (and wrote about <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2013/03/triple-damages-for-overtime-update.html">why I think that is case</a>). A case pending before the Maryland Court of Appeals will likely provide a final answer. The case is <a href="http://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals/petitions/201309petitions.html">Muriel Peters v. Early Healthcare Giver, Inc</a>. The Court in Peters agreed to review the following three questions:<br />
<br />
1) Are overtime wages recoverable under the MD Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL)?<br />
<br />
2) In a bench trial, is it an abuse of discretion to fail, without explanation, to award treble damages under the MWPCL where there is no claim of bona fide dispute?<br />
<br />
3) Should any award of up to treble damages under MWPCL be made in addition to the award of unpaid wages?<br />
<br />
The above questions suggest that the trial court awarded overtime wages but did not award the <a href="http://mdemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/Triple%20Damages">triple damages</a> permitted by the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (but did not explain why). The Court of Appeals held <a href="http://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals/media/2013/coa20140429caseno86.wmv">oral argument on April 29, 2014</a>. The employer did not participate (probably because it did not have the money to retain a lawyer). The Court of Appeal had many questions about how it could award triple damages in the absence of a trial court finding that the overtime wages were withheld in bad faith. To me, that suggests the Court will remand the case back to the trial court to decide that issue and explain the rationale for its decision. <br />
=================================================<br />
8/19/14 -- Update the Court <a href="http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2014/86a13.pdf">ruled</a> that triple damages are recoverable for unpaid overtime and remanded the case to the Circuit Court to decide whether to award such damages in this case.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26317459.post-41292603173340976722014-06-19T13:23:00.001-05:002014-06-23T10:12:09.375-05:00Maryland Law Increasing Minimum Wage Also Provides for Liquidated (or Double) Damages The Federal law governing the minimum wage and overtime is the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Maryland has its own minimum wage and overtime law, called the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"). Under the FLSA, a plaintiff claiming unpaid wages can collect the amount owed plus an equivalent amount as liquidated damages. The plaintiff thus can collect double damages. Under the MWHL, a plaintiff could only collect the wages owed (single damages). As a result, most plaintiffs have historically brought their claims under the FLSA. Most FLSA claims end up in Federal Court. <br />
<br />
That is likely to change. The <a href="http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2014RS/Chapters_noln/CH_262_hb0295e.pdf">law eventually raising Maryland's minimum wage to $10.10</a> also states that Court can shall award liquidated damages for a violation of the MWHL. An employer can avoid liquidated damages if it can show it acted in good faith and reasonably believed that the wages paid to the employee were not less than the MWHL requires. The law takes effect July 1, 2014. As a result, more overtime and minimum wage cases will end up in Maryland State Courts.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10846666342096648107noreply@blogger.com0