Managing Partner Robert Baror has just been recognized with an Avvo rating of 10.0 out of 10.
The Baror Law Firm, LLC is a full-service employment law firm representing both employers and employees in all employment law matters. The Baror Law Firm, LLC is a full-service employment law firm representing employers and employees in all facets of employment law, including discrimination, harassment, covenants not to compete, wage and hour claims, and all other employment law matters.
Managing Partner Robert Baror has just been recognized with an Avvo rating of 10.0 out of 10.
If you have a disability and cannot perform your current job, but your employer has other open positions which you can perform, you may now have the right to a reassignment under Maryland law. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in a recent case that a reassignment is a reasonable accommodation, and an employer who refuses to consider a request for reassignment may be in violation of the state Fair Employment Practices Act. This is an important decision for disabled workers. No longer is it arguable under Maryland law that these employees must show that they can be accommodated in the present jobs which they hold. It is now likely enough if they can show that their employers had other available positions which they could perform. The decision, Peninsula Regional Medical Center v. Tracey L. Adkins, now provides additional avenues for disabled workers to remain in the workplace, and is a victory for advocates for the disabled. Meanwhile it creates additional requirements for businesses, making preventative legal counsel a wise investment. Whether you are an individual suffering from a disability or a business seeking to comply with the law, Baror Law is experienced in handling disability accommodation and discrimination cases, including specifically reassignment disability cases. In fact, Baror Law has been pursuing this legal strategy since before the Court of Appeals opinion came out, based upon federal precedents. If you need legal counsel for disability law issues, you may contact Baror Law for a consultation.
A federal judge in California denied preliminary approval to a $12 million class action settlement agreement that would have resolved Lyft drivers' claims of being misclassified by the ride-share company as independent contractors because the settlement was based on an "artificially low estimate" of damages; in particular the true maximum value of the drivers' mileage reimbursement claim appeared to be double the figure on which the settlement in this California Labor Code suit was based. Just over a year ago, the court ruled that whether Lyft drivers were employees or independent contractors was for a jury to decide. Both Uber and Lyft drivers have been fighting to be treated as employees rather than independent contractors because this would mean that they could be reimbursed for expenses, wage and hour laws would apply, benefits laws would apply, and the ride-share companies would have to pay the employer share of payroll taxes, such as social security taxes.
New York has now become just the fifth state - after California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington State - to mandate paid leave. The program will mandate up to 12 weeks of paid time off for the birth or adoption of a child and to care for an ill parent, child, spouse, domestic partner or other family member. While federal law, under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), allows some employees 12 weeks of leave for similar events, that leave is unpaid leave. Unlike with federal law, New York's law will cover full and part-time employees and there will be no exemptions for small businesses. Moreover, whereas with federal FMLA you have to work for one year before you are eligible for leave, New York law only requires 6 months of employment. The program will be funded on an insurance model, in which roughly a dollar a week will be deducted from employee paychecks. However, it is important to note that the paid leave will not become effective until January 1, 2018, and then it will be gradually phased in. The paid leave program, the most expansive in the nation, could become a model for other states.
A federal court in Connecticut recently ruled that transgender discrimination is illegal because it is a form of sex discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not explicitly protected against transgender discrimination. It does protect against sex discrimination. Therefore, transgender rights advocates have been arguing that transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination protected under Title VII. On March 21, 2016 a U.S. District Court in Connecticut agreed with this argument and ruled that a failure to hire due to transgender status was legally actionable as sex discrimination. The Supreme Court has never addressed this issue, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has found that discrimination on the basis of transgender status is not legally actionable sex discrimination. Maryland is in the Fourth Circuit, which has not addressed the issue, nor has the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Sooner or later, it is likely that this issue will find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But, for now, it is clear that the trend is towards the growth of legal protections for individuals with transgender status. Employers should take not of this and transgendered individuals should be aware of their growing rights. - See more at: http://barorlaw.com/lawyer/blog/Employment-Law-Blog.htm#sthash.ANFSmJBc.dpuf
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not explicitly protected against transgender discrimination. It does protect against sex discrimination. Therefore, transgender rights advocates have been arguing that transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination protected under Title VII.…
Don't forget to check out our website, www.barorlaw.com
On March 1st the EEOC announced the filing of its first two Title VII sex discrimination cases based on sexual orientation. One of the suits was filed locally in the District of Maryland. The EEOC has been working for several years to try to show that sexual orientation, which is not explicitly listed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is a form of sex discrimination, which is covered under Title VII.
In many respects, the federal laws are playing catch-up to state and local laws which already protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in many jurisdictions, including Maryland and the District of Columbia.
The National Federation of the Blind, based in Baltimore, agreed to pay $25,000 to an employee who alleged he was fired from his bookkeeping position because he refused to work on Saturdays. The employee was a practicing Hebrew Pentecostal, a Christian denomination, whose Sabbath is on Saturdays. The employee stated that he attempted to engage his employer in a dialogue. But, instead, he was terminated. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Federation will conduct anti-discrimination training and post a notice informing employees that they are entitled to reasonable accommodations for their religious practices.
Have You Been Written-Up After Complaining of Discrimination?
Many employers have learned that before terminating someone, they should create a paper trail of so-called performance issues. However, just because you have write-ups or negative evaluations does not automatically mean that your employer has the right to terminate you. If you complained of discrimination or harassment before the negative reviews or write-ups, you may still have a retaliation claim. This is what occurred in the case of Smith v. Mayo in Minnesota, where the employee was put on a performance improvement plan (PIP) and written-up for attendance issues after complaining of race discrimination. The Court found that even though the employer had documentation of alleged performance problems, the timing of the PIP and write-ups, coming after the discrimination complaint, allowed the employee to go forward with her claims.
Many employers have learned that before terminating someone, they should create a paper trail of so-called performance issues. However, just because you have write-ups or negative evaluations does not automatically mean that your employer has the right to terminate you. If you complained of discrimi…
In the case of Pitts v. Howard University the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that an employee's allegation that he was retaliated against by having his responsibilities curtailed, and having his number of direct reports reduced by 80%, was a materially adverse employment action which could support a retaliation claim. The employee had filed an internal complaint of discrimination, and approximately five months later he was removed from his assistant treasurer position and placed in the position of payroll and budget officer. He went from supervising 26 employees to overseeing four employees. While Howard University argued that the reassignment did not meet the legal definition of retaliation because it did not allege any changes to the terms and conditions of his employment, the Court disagreed, and found that a reassignment with significantly different responsibilities was retaliatory.
Check out our new website at www.barorlaw.com
The Baror Law Firm, LLC's cover photo
The Baror Law Firm, LLC
7315 Wisconsin Ave, Ste 400
Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Baror Law Firm, LLC posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.