Craig Ballew, Author at Ferguson, Schetelich, Ballew, P.A.

May 19, 2023

ANNAPOLIS ENACTS MAJOR CHANGES ON CIVIL CLAIMS TIED TO PAST ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS; ARE ALL THE CHANGES CONSTITUTIONAL?

In April 2023, Governor Wes Moore signed into law a bill greatly expanding-- prospectively and retroactively-- the right of individuals to bring civil claims for sexual abuse which they allege occurred when they were minors. There is not a more sympathetic group of individuals than those who suffered abuse as minors at the hands of adults in positions of authority. The fact that the bill’s lead sponsor had his own personal experience with such abuse makes the legislative push for change even more understandable. At the same time, the breadth of the changes, particularly those that apply retroactively, raises legitimate…

December 21, 2021

SIXTH CIRCUIT CLEARS OSHA EMPLOYER COVID MANDATE TO TAKE EFFECT

On December 17, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted the stay on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) that requires employers of 100 or more employees to determine the vaccination status of each employee, and for those employees who are not vaccinated to submit weekly proof of negative tests and wear a face mask at work. Specific details on the ETS are in the Ferguson, Schetelich & Ballew Memorandum that immediately follows this article. This (commonly-called) Employer Mandate is an ETS originally issued by OSHA on November 5, 2021,…

April 13, 2021

CAN EMPLOYERS REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO BE VACCINATED FOR COVID-19?

With a nationwide vaccination program now a full go, businesses are looking forward to returning to pre-COVID work schedules. Many are considering whether they can (or should) require employees to be vaccinated as a condition of continued employment. Employment law questions have been raised, given the legal protections of workers under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws. Historically, this is not a new issue. In 1905, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, upholding a state law that required a smallpox vaccine. In 2009, both the EEOC and the Occupational Safety…

March 19, 2020

Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Where it Stands Today

In this period of rapid change, few things are moving faster than the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”). This federal legislation creates new sick leave benefits and temporarily expands the scope of the Family and Medical Leave Act to assist certain employees and their families confronting challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The FFCRA was passed by the House on March 14, amended by the House over the weekend, and then passed by the Senate yesterday evening. The President wasted no time and quickly signed it into law. With his signature, the legal obligations of many employers changed. Those…

September 3, 2019

New Maryland Employment Law Will Expand Employer Liablity for Workplace Harrassment.

Maryland’s new employee harassment law (HB 679) is set to become effective October 1, 2019. The law dramatically expands the scope of actions that can be brought against employers, and (perhaps most importantly) is much broader than protections now available under Federal law. The new Maryland law covers harassment against workers based on race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It does not have a specific definition of “harassment,” but rather maintains the “judicially determined meaning” – which involves unwelcome behavior, comments, or actions that create a hostile or offensive working…

August 24, 2017

REVISITING WHEN AN EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK IS A CONTRACT UNDER MARYLAND LAW

Is your employee handbook a contract? Thirty years ago, Maryland’s courts ruled that a jury had to decide that question, unless the handbook contained a “clear and conspicuous” disclaimer stating that it was not a contract. Since then, most Maryland employers have wisely introduced disclaimer language to avoid litigation seeking damages because something in the handbook was not followed exactly as written. A recent Maryland case revisits this question and identifies a new problem created, in part, by our societal move into the digital age. James Tucker was an employee of the Johns Hopkins University (“the University”). He was notified…

December 5, 2014

Employee Courtesy and Other Workplace Conduct Standards: Why The NLRB Says They May Violate Federal Law

Most employers think (incorrectly) that they can decide what conduct will be deemed appropriate in their workplace. What they don’t appreciate is that the federal government is looking over their shoulder and, increasingly, ruling that many common sense standards for workplace behavior violate federal law. Take this quick quiz. Is it permissible to prohibit an employee from expressing a “discourteous or inappropriate attitude” towards customers, co-workers, or the public? Can you discipline an employee for making false or derogatory comments about coworkers and management? Can you tell employees that when they are in the community they should represent your business…

April 29, 2014

OFCCP Adopts Final Rules Expanding Veteran Hiring Requirements for Federal Contractors

The past few years have seen a flurry of regulatory activity by the Department of Justice’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). A previous post discussed the newly-revised rules concerning disability hiring requirements for federal contractors. Another important development has been the adoption of new rules imposing requirements for the hiring of veterans, now codified as Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60-300. Like the disability-related rules, these amendments took effect on March 24, 2014. The newly-amended rules impose several new requirements that will change the way federal contractors do business. Among the most important are…

Disclaimer

The information contained in these blog posts is intended to convey general information only and not to provide specific legal advice or to form an attorney-client relationship. Ferguson, Schetelich, & Ballew, P.A. does not assume responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any of the information contained in these blog posts. The information may not apply to your unique situation, and is not intended as a substitute for legal advice.

This website may be considered attorney advertising under the rules of some states. Prior results described on this site cannot and do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter that Ferguson, Schetelich, & Ballew, P.A. or any lawyer may be retained to handle. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in these blog posts is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or by any other applicable tax authority or to promote, market or recommend to another any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Reproduction, distribution, republication, and/or retransmission of material contained within the Ferguson, Schetelich, & Ballew, P.A. website is prohibited unless the prior written permission of Ferguson, Schetelich, & Ballew, P.A. has been obtained.