Maryland Employers Law Blog

New Maryland Legislation Restricts Use of Credit Reports in Employment Decisions

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:02:00 GMT

Governor O’Malley has signed into law the Maryland Job Applicant Fairness Act (the "Act") , which takes effect on October 1, 2011. This highly debated legislation will greatly restrict an employer’s ability to use a credit report in making employment decisions.

Workplace Bullying and Abuse Legislation

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:55:00 GMT

On March 3, 2011, Kathie Gant testified during a legislative hearing of the Maryland General Assembly in support of a proposed workplace abuse statute. While fighting back tears, she described a shocking story that oddly enough did not involve discrimination or any other recognized form of illegal workplace conduct. Gant explained in detail how her employer, a Maryland attorney, systematically terrorized Gant for more than a year at the office. Examples of the abuse included: locking Gant in a dark closet; throwing office supplies at Gant’s head; verbally denigrating Gant on a regular basis in front of clients and peers; and physically intimidating Gant. She further explained that her complaints to human resources were ignored and that the persistent abuse ultimately forced her into psychiatric counseling.

#5 Maryland’s Court of Appeals upholds damage cap despite claims of unconstitutionality.

Thu, 03 Feb 2011 18:48:00 GMT

In a recent controversial opinion that allowed insurers and business owners to breath a huge sigh of relief, Maryland’s highest court upheld the constitutionality of Maryland’s cap on non-economic damages, meaning that a plaintiff’s claim for pain and suffering damages is limited regardless of what a jury awards.

In the summer of 2006, a five-year-old boy accidentally drowned in a country club swimming pool in Anne Arundel County. The boy’s parents sued the swimming pool management company for negligence. The parents won and the jury awarded them over $4 million for their mental anguish from the death of their child. Because of Maryland’s law that sets a cap on non-economic damages (pain and suffering, as opposed to medical expenses and lost wages), the trial court reduced the verdict to just over $1 million. The parents appealed and argued that the statutory cap was unconstitutional.

The court rejected the parents’ argument on the basis that it had already decided the same issue years before. In two previous cases, the court upheld the constitutionality of the damage cap after similar attacks. The court said that it would only overturn these decisions if they were clearly wrong and contrary to established principles of law, or if significant changes in the law since the earlier cases had made the decisions in those cases invalid. The court determined that neither exception applied, and its decision in the earlier cases would be upheld .

The court also ruled that the cap was not a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The parents claimed that the cap created different and unfair classifications of injured plaintiffs – those with less serious injuries get to keep all of the money that the jury awards them, but more seriously injured plaintiffs do not. The court did not accept that argument. Because the Maryland Legislature’s rationale was that a damage cap would help provide better insurance premiums and coverage, there was a rational basis for the law, and it did not violate the Constitution.

This decision was a major victory for the Maryland insurance industry and the tort reform movement. Plaintiffs’ lawyers and other personal injury advocates have long argued that statutory caps are unfair because they prevent the most seriously injured plaintiffs from being properly compensated. The court’s decision, however, makes it clear that Maryland’s damage cap will continue in place.

For more information regarding non-economic recovery in personal injury cases, please contact Christopher J. Tully at ctully@tydingslaw.com or 410.752.9755.

More ...

Cybersecurity Risk Management: A Must For All Businesses

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 20:32:00 GMT

Recently, Golden State Bridge, Inc. was attacked by spyware designed to steal the construction company’s banking credentials. Within hours, hackers created fraudulent payroll transactions totaling more than $750,000. Fortunately, Golden State Bridge’s security team caught the breaches early and prevented much of the loss. In addition, the company’s cybersecurity insurance coverage compensated it for losses that it was not able to prevent.

Violations of CAN Spam Act Cost Businesses Millions; But Help May Be On The Way

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:00:00 GMT

Most modern businesses have experienced the tremendous frustrations caused by spam messages. Unsolicited emails clog inboxes, crash servers, and cost companies billions. In 2003, Congress enacted the CAN Spam Act (the “Act”) with the goal of drastically reducing or eliminating spam. However, the Act has been heavily criticized, and many believe it does little to eliminate the problem. Experts argue that the Act serves as a “how to legally spam” guide for e-marketers, rather than a serious legal deterrent. Others insist that spam has actually increased since the Act’s passage.