Maryland Employment Law
Thursday, April 25, 2024
FTC Rule Banning Non-Competes to Become Effective But is Subject to Legal Challenge
Friday, April 12, 2024
New Law Will Require Employers Give Wage Notices To Maryland Employees Every Pay Period
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.
Thursday, April 11, 2024
Maryland General Assembly Passes Uniform Anti-Retaliation Provisions to Protect Wage Whistleblowers
Friday, February 21, 2020
The Long Arms of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law
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.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Two Maryland Non-Compete Clauses And A Magic Blue Pencil.
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).
Thursday, June 13, 2019
New Maryland Law Broadens Protections Against Workplace Harrassment
- 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.