Uncategorized

Federal courts have applied a “demanding standard” in construing whether a particular impairment is recognized as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Plaintiffs who seek to show that they experienced an adverse action, such as termination, as the result of their impairment must show that the impairment prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives. Enterprising plaintiff’s attorneys are continuously seeking to…

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

While it is well-settled that the law in Virginia disfavors covenants not to compete (commonly referred to as “non-competes”), this policy does not apply to non-competes which were entered into and negotiated by sophisticated parties.  The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia refused to void two employees’ non-compete agreements because in the law’s view, sophisticated parties are entitled to the benefit of their bargain. In the case of Capital One Fin. Corp.