Maryland Employment Law

Appellate Court of Maryland Affirms Individual-Owner Liability and Explains Availability of Extra Damages for Overtime Violations

2026-02-25T11:52:00.000-05:00

In Morales v. Bryant Concrete Construction, the Appellate Court of Maryland outlined a roadmap for overtime claims in Maryland. That roadmap is that Plaintiffs should pursue their remedies against the individual owners of small business and should seek exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

The Court first held that a 51% owner of a concrete company could be individually liable for overtime violations. This owner claimed she only provided "back-office" support, though she admitted she had the power to hire and fire, and set employee pay. (The Trial Court had dismissed out this owner).

Second, the Court found an employer can be liable for double damages under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. It can only avoid these additional damages if the employer can prove it acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believe its actions did not violate the wage laws. (The Trial Court had declined to award the additional damages). In the end, the Appellate Court did not decide whether double damages were appropriate but ordered a re-trial (given its finding that the 51% owner could be on-the-hook)..

Notably, the overturned trial verdict was for about $14,000. Now, the case will be re-tried. Undoubtedly, the lawyers for the Plaintiffs will seek to recover their attorney's fees for both trials and the appeal. Through the appeal, the Plaintiffs' were already claiming $173,461.53 for fees and costs.

The moral of the story is that it rarely makes sense for an employer to try an overtime claim.

Hospital May Be Liable for Breaching Settlement Agreement That Required Specific Reporting to the Practitioners' Data Bank

2024-09-19T12:53:00.002-05:00

The Maryland Supreme Court recently decided Adventist Health Care v. Behram. Dr. Berham served as a physician at Shady Grove Hospital. The Hospital twice suspended his privileges. In lieu of a hearing about his conduct, the Hospital and Dr. Berham reached a settlement agreement. After -- and in exchange for -- the Hospital restoring Dr. Berham's privileges, he agreed to resign from the Hospital. In addition, the Hospital agreed to submit a carefully negotiated and drafted report to the National Practitioner Data Bank. (A data bank operated by HHS that tracks information about physician malpractice and misconduct.)

Oddly, the Hospital did not just send the Data Bank the agreed report. It also filled in codes in a report that generated language that suggested that Dr. Berham surrendered his privileges while under investigation, was an immediate threat, and had engaged in substandard care.

The Court ruled that by entering these codes, which generated the negative language, the Hospital breached its agreement to submit only the negotiated report. The Court remanded the case to the trial Court, presumably for a trial as to whether the Hospital's breach was material and, if so, a determination as to Dr. Berham's damages.

This cases is interesting to me because the settlement agreement at issue is so similar to the settlement agreement I negotiate every day. In my experience, the parties usually do what they agreed to do. This is especially so when it comes to providing non-economic relief (like sending a report).

Maryland Paid Family and Medical Leave Scheduled to Start on July 1, 2026.

2024-06-13T14:34:00.000-05:00

Maryland has enacted a paid family and medical leave insurance program paid family and medical leave insurance program that will begin paying benefits on July 1, 2026. The benefit will be up to $1,000 per week. The program is funded by a tax on employee wages. The tax is paid by employees and by employers with 15 or more workers. (Small employers are exempt from paying into the fund). The benefits are paid by the State or an Insurer and not the employer.

The leave can be for up to 12 weeks. It can be used to (1) welcome a new child; (2) care for the employee's own serious health condition; (3) care a family member’s serious health condition; or (4) make arrangements for a family member’s military deployment.

This paid family and medical leave will need to be coordinated with other leave. Employers cannot require that employees use other paid leave before or during the period covered by this new paid family and medical leave program.

The law authorizing the insurance program contains an anti-retaliation provision. It allows an employee to file an administrative claim if the employee is not restored to his or position at the end of their protected leave, or if the employer terminates an employee for taking a protected leave (though there are some exceptions).

The Maryland Department of Labor has issued a set of draft regulations to implement the new program.

FTC Rule Banning Non-Competes to Become Effective But is Subject to Legal Challenge

2024-04-25T12:48:00.005-05:00

UPDATE: A Federal Court in Texas has enjoined the FTC rule (meaning the rule cannot go into effect).

============================================================

I have defended numerous employees accused by their former employers of violating non-competition agreements. In several recent cases, I have successfully persuaded trial courts to rule that all or part of the at issue agreements be invalidated because they are overbroad.

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission voted to finalize a new rule to prohibit employers from enforcing noncompetes against workers. The rule is set to become effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register. There have already been several legal challenges seeking to invalidate the rule.

The rule defines a non-compete as an agreement that prohibits or prevents a worker from seeking or accepting a subsequent job. Importantly, this would prohibit restrictive training repayment agreements, that often impose steep training repayment costs if an employee leaves an employer who has provided training. These are often called "stay or pay" agreements. The rule exempts a limited number of high level or highly compensated employees (earning over $151,164 annually). The FTC also did not prohibit non-disclosure or non-solicitation agreements (unless they prevent a worker from subsequent employment).

Time will tell whether the legal challenges succeed in delaying or enjoining this game-changing new rule.

New Law Will Require Employers Give Wage Notices To Maryland Employees Every Pay Period

2024-04-12T12:59:00.001-05:00

The Maryland General Assembly passed a new law that requires employers give notice to employees every pay period. This information provides minimum standards for the information normally placed on a physical or electronic pay stub. The stub/notice must include the following information:

➤ The employer’s name registered with the State, address, and telephone number;

➤ The date of payment and the beginning and ending dates of the pay period;

➤ The number of hours worked during the pay period, unless the employee is exempt;

➤ The rates of pay

➤ The gross and net pay earned during the pay period

➤ The amount and name of all deductions;

➤ A list of additional pay, including bonuses, commissions on sales, or other bases;

➤ The applicable piece rates of pay and the number of pieces completed at each piece rate for each employee paid at a piece rate.

If signed by the Governor, the Law will go into effect on October 1, 2024.

Maryland General Assembly Passes Uniform Anti-Retaliation Provisions to Protect Wage Whistleblowers

2024-04-11T10:33:00.002-05:00

The Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill 1036. It provides that employers cannot retaliate against employees who complain about violations of Maryland's child labor, equal pay, wage and hour, wage collection, workplace fraud, and living wage laws. The new Law establishes a uniform enforcement procedure. Whistleblowers who are retaliated against for making complaints may file with the Maryland Department of Labor. The Department then has the ability to investigate the claims, collect back pay, and assess fines on a violating employer. If a violating employer does not comply, the Department can sue the employer in Court and seek a broader array of damages, including triple damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees. If signed by Governor Moore, the new law will take effect on July 1, 2024.

The Long Arms of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law

2020-02-21T14:55:00.001-05:00

The 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 triple damages if he or she can prove the wages are withheld in bad faith. The Law applies to employees who work in Maryland.

But how much work must an employee perform in Maryland? Employees often spend time in more than one jurisdiction here in the "DMV." That questions was largely answered in Himes Associates v. Anderson. 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.

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.

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.

Two Maryland Non-Compete Clauses And A Magic Blue Pencil.

2019-09-12T13:45:00.000-05:00

Aerotek filed suit in Maryland against a former employee alleging she violated a non-compete agreement. Aerotek v. Obercian, 377 F. Supp. 3d 539 (D. Md. 2019). 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:  (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.

Can you guess which clause the Court found enforceable and which it found was not?

The Court found Clause 1 facially enforceable because it is plausibly directed at a legally protectable interest. That interest, according to the Court, is ensuring that a departing employee does not steal the employer's customers.

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.

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.

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 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).

(Updated to note: this case settled before trial).

New Maryland Law Broadens Protections Against Workplace Harrassment

2019-06-13T14:29:00.001-05:00

A new law, that takes effect October 1, 2019, expands the protections Marylanders have against workplace harassment. The new law:

Allows independent contractors to claim workplace harassment.
Extends the time for individuals to file administrative claims for workplace harassment to two years (up from 180 days).
Expands the scope of our State's anti-discrimination law to employers with one or more employees (down from 15 employees).
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.

Facing workplace harassment? Consult a Maryland Employment attorney.

Law Limiting Non-Compete Agreements in Maryland to Take Effect October 1, 2019

2019-05-23T13:53:00.000-05:00

The Maryland General Assembly passed a law 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 narrow class of employees may lawfully be covered by such an agreement.

Varying Independent Contractor Tests Apply to Maryland Employees

2019-01-28T12:57:00.001-05:00

Employees in Maryland enjoy our broad array of worker protection statutes. Employees may qualify for sick leave and parental leave. They can sue for overtime and lost wages (and may be eligible for triple damages). They may be eligible for unemployment. Employers, of course, are required to withhold income and payroll taxes for their employees.

Independent contractors get bupkis (nothing). They likely have to pay self-employment tax.

This disparity in rights creates an incentive for employer to push individuals toward being classified as independent contractors.

But, could you be an employee for one purpose and an independent contractor for another? The answer is, "yes." That is because there are different independent contractor tests for different statutes.

The broadest test is called the "ABC" test because all three prongs of the test must be met. It applies to claims for unemployment and the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act (which only applies in the construction and landscaping industries). To be an independent contractor under this test the employee must be:

free from control and direction;
performing work in his or own business or occupation; and
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.

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

the degree of control that the employer has over the manner in which the work is performed;
the worker's opportunities for profit or loss dependent on his managerial skill;
the worker's investment in equipment or material, or his employment of other workers;
the degree of skill required for the work;
the permanence of the working relationship; and
the degree to which the services rendered are an integral part of the putative employer's business.

Though similar to the economic realities test, the IRS and the NLRB 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.

New Maryland Law Makes General Contractors Liable for Unpaid Wages Owed by Sub-Contractors

2019-01-18T12:02:00.001-05:00

As of October 1, 2018, under a new law, 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 for a lien, and may sue his direct employer, the individual owner of the company he or she works for, and - now - the general contractor. The Law allows for triple damages and attorney's fees if the employee can prove that wages were withheld in bad faith.

Maryland's “Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018"

2019-01-15T14:13:00.001-05:00

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:

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.

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.

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 (as is the case for claims under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law).

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.

Costs To Defend Against Alleged Non-Compete Violations Often Drive Employee Decisions (Even if the Agreement is Likely Unenforceable)

2019-01-14T11:16:00.001-05:00

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 legitimate business interest, purport to apply to an employee who cannot be covered, or contain terms that are presumptively unlawful. 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 stopped this practice).

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.

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 can be expensive.

An employee faced with threatened enforcement of non-compete should contact a lawyer. There are ways to leverage your way out of such agreements.

Legislators have attempted to address this issue over the years. Already in the Legislative Session, Al Carr, introduced HB38 (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.

If you are facing threatened enforcement of a non-compete agreement, you should review this post and reach out to an attorney.

Hiring An Employment Attorney

2019-01-10T14:01:00.000-05:00

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: sue your former employer using our law firm because it is the most aggressive, knowledgeable, and experienced in the area.

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.

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.

Tangibles

Is the lawyer licensed? In Maryland check here.
Has the lawyer been disciplined? In Maryland check here.
How long has the lawyer been practicing?
Have clients posted public reviews? Avvo is a good place to look for answers.
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, Maryland State Court Case docket information and Federal Court case information (registration and fees required) are available.
Does the lawyer really focus his or her practice on employment law?

Intangibles

Meet with the potential lawyer in person if possible.
Is the lawyer (not just the staff) easy to reach by phone and electronic mail?
Does the lawyer appear worthy of your trust?
Is the lawyer willing to give you examples of his or her past experience?
Is the lawyer willing to give you an estimate of the costs going forward?
Expect to pay for good representation. Seek out attorneys who are willing to take a flexible approach to billing arrangements.
Written retainer agreements are a must.

Choice of Law Provision Likely Unenforceable If It Causes a Maryland Employee to Forfeit Earned Wages

2019-01-10T10:44:00.000-05:00

Choice 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.

Maryland has several employee-favorable worker protection statutes, including the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). The MWPCL allows employees to collect earned commissions and allows for triple damages if wages are withheld in bad faith.

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.

But in a case called, Cunningham v. Feinberg, 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 Blanch v. Chubb & Sons, in which a Judge reversed herself on the application of a Choice of Law Provision because of Cunningham.

Bottom line, if you work in Maryland, the MWPCL applies to you.

Maryland Non-Compete Agreement Unenforceable As Applied to Salespeople Processing Competitive Bids

2019-01-09T16:40:00.001-05:00

Here, 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 legally protectable interest in enforcing the agreement. The Court relied heavily on a Ecology Services v. Clym Environmental to hold that the salespeople did not fall within the class of employees who can covered by a non-compete agreement in Maryland.

If your employer seeks to enforce a non-compete agreement, check these posts:

What to do when you are threatened with a non-compete lawsuit.

Q: Can you leverage your way out of a Maryland Non-Compete? A: Maybe.

James Edward Rubin - jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com- (301) 760-7914

2019-01-09T09:32:00.000-05:00

James 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).

Notable accomplishments include:

• Winning a complex First Amendment retaliation jury trial, recovering compensatory damages and 100% of claimed attorney’s fees ($143,116.78).

• Winning summary judgment in favor of employee accused of violating non-compete agreement, and affirmance on appeal.

• Winning an $880,000 jury verdict on behalf of a commissioned salesperson.

• Defeating motions to enforce a non-compete agreement at temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction hearings.

• Winning class certification and summary judgment motions in an overtime collective action on behalf of ticket office employees against the Washington Redskins.

• Litigating a settlement opt-in collective action on behalf of dealership employees seeking minimum wage payments.

• Obtaining a double damages verdict in a suit brought under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Mr. Rubin frequently lectures on, and is frequently quoted as an expert on Maryland Employment Law. See,
Pending Law Will Ban Employer Facebook Password Queries; Judge Rules Balto. Co. Pension System Discriminates Based on Age; Non-competes give businesses piece of mind while protecting their interests;
Wrongly Classifying Workers Can Land Employers in Hot Water.

He has maintained an Avvo rating of 10.0 and was selected as a SuperLawyer in both Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Can Severance Pay Be a "Wage" under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law? Maybe!

2018-08-16T14:40:00.000-05:00

Severance pay falls into two legal baskets under Maryland law.

Severance pay earned for an employee's labor or work.
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.

Back in 2003, in Stevenson v. BB&T, the Court of Appeals ruled that severance for labor is a "wage" subject to the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Severance for a non-compete or waiver is not a wage subject to the Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Does this matter? It sure does. Wages subject to the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law can be tripled (if withheld in bad faith).

In Blood v. Columbus U.S. (April 2018) the Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently followed Stevenson: money paid in exchange for a period of non-competition is not a wage “due for work" and therefore not subject to the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Maryland Misclassification Cases Often Start with a Claim for Unemployment

2017-10-02T16:06:00.001-05:00

Where can Maryland employees misclassified as independent contractors go to file a claim? The unemployment office is one place they can go (after they are terminated from the job).

Maryland's unemployment law has a restrictive test for employment status. You are a presumed to be an employee unless:

You are free from direction and control;
You are engaged in an independent business that is of the same nature as the work your are performing; and
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.

A 2016 law, called the "Recovery of Benefits and Penalties for Fraud Act," 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.

Maryland Paid Sick Leave Law Vetoed by Govenor Hogan - Update - Veto Overridden!

2017-09-28T09:28:00.000-05:00

Update - The General Assembly voted to overrider the veto. See this helpful link on Maryland's sick leave law.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On May 25, 2017, Governor Hogan vetoed the "Maryland Healthy Working Families Act." 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.

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 Earned Sick and Safe Leave Law.

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 "Committee on Paid Leave" to study how best to implement paid leave.

Maryland's leave laws are summarized in this chart.

Maryland False Claims Act of 2015: State Law Protection for Whistleblowers

2015-11-06T11:12:00.000-05:00

The Maryland False Claims Act took effect June 1, 2015. The main provisions of the Act:

Prohibit a person from knowingly making a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval by the government;
Permit a private citizen to file a civil action on behalf of the government against a person who has made a false claim;
Require the court to award a certain percentage of the proceeds of the action to the private citizen initiating the action; and
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.

For employees and contractors, the Act provides two avenues to pursue relief.

"Qui-Tam Claims." 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.

"Retaliation Claims." 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.

Employee/whistle-blowers considering pursuing either avenue to relief should consult counsel since this can a difficult area to navigate.

Minimum Wage Increases in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties effective October 1, 2015.

2015-10-28T10:55:00.003-05:00

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. Here is the Maryland Department of Labor's minimum wage site. Here is the Maryland Department of Labor's minimum wage site.

Chart Summarizing Maryland's Leave Laws

2015-10-14T14:41:00.001-05:00

I 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!

The Maryland Parental Leave Act

2015-10-08T14:49:00.003-05:00

The Maryland Parental Leave Act requires requires employers with 15 to 49 employees to provide employees with unpaid parental leave.

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.

During parental leave, the employer must maintain existing coverage for a group health plan

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.

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.

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.