A recent Virginia federal court decision gives employers greater guidance in dealing with employee attendance issues relating to childcare responsibilities.  In Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (No. 1:11-cv-1360), the Court recently dismissed a male employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims against his employer claiming that it unfairly disciplined him because he had to take his child to school every morning.  Among other things, the employee claimed that the employer treated male employees differently than female

In a recent Maryland Federal Court decision, the Court ruled that the seller of two radio stations could enforce the buyer’s guaranty to employ and pay salaries to the seller’s owners, even though the seller was not a party to the employment agreements. In the case of Manning Broadcasting Inc. v. Mercatanti, Jr., Manning Broadcasting, Inc. (“Manning Co.”) agreed to sell its two radio stations in Hagerstown, Maryland to Nassau Broadcasting I, LLC and Nassau

Unlawful discrimination claims have a “burden-shifting” framework that can make employers verify the legitimacy of their adverse employment decisions.  To reduce the risks associated with such claims, employers should make sure that an employee’s file is well-papered with nondiscriminatory reasons supporting any adverse action.  If done properly, careful documentation can help employers maximize their chances of success in defending against meritless unlawful discrimination claims. The recent case of Hickman v. Kucharski illustrates the fate of

The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed a robbery conviction because the trial court considered evidence of two prior robbery convictions from Maryland.  The issue was whether robbery in Maryland is “substantially similar” to robbery in Virginia. In Virginia, an intent to steal which arises after the application of force is insufficient to prove robbery.  However, in Maryland, if force precedes the taking, the intent to steal need not coincide with the force.  Since in

Police seized a motorist for speeding.  During the ticketing, the driver and passenger separately told the officer different things about their travels within 9 minutes of the stop.  This was short enough for the officer to call in a drug dog 13 minutes after the stop to alert the officer to the presence of drugs in the trunk 3 minutes later. (There were other clues of criminal activity — nervousness, two people but four phones,