In The News

On October 12, 2007, Mr. Rubin will be a featured speak at the seminar Maryland Employment Law from A to Z. Details about the seminar are available here.

The Third Annual MELA Conference, "Protecting Employee Rights in the State Courts of Maryland," will be Friday, September 28, 2007 at the Columbia Sheraton. There will be exciting line-up, focused on how to succeed in the Maryland state courts. Special attention will be given to the new private right of action under 49B, Maryland's anti-discrimination law. Judges from various circuit courts in Maryland, and from the Office of Administrative Hearings, will give an insider's view to their jurisdictions. A brochure for the seminar is available here.

Mr. Rubin will moderate a panel discussion on "How to Litigate a State Administrative Hearing at the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings." The panel will include:

The Honorable Thomas Dewberry, Chief Administrative Law Judge, OAH

The Honorable Bernard McClellan, Administrative Law Judge, Deputy Director of Quality Assurance, OAH

The Honorable Wayne Brooks, Administrative Law Judge, Deputy Director of Operations, OAH

Jessica Kaufman, Assistant Attorney General Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation

April 9, 2007 was the one year anniversary of the Rubin Employment Law Firm, P.C. The firm's anniversary coincides with the 100th article published on the firm's blog, Maryland Employment Law.

On June 29, 2007, Mr. Rubin will moderate the seminar: Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Update 2007. The seminar will feature several distinguished spearkers and focus on avoiding employee complaints.

On September 29, Mr. Rubin served as a panel moderator at the Maryland Employment Lawyers Association's annual training conference. Mr. Rubin's panel discussed how the United States Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White affects retaliation claims brought in Maryland. Mr. Rubin's analysis of the major cases issued after Burlington Northern is available here.

The June 2006 issue of The Maryland Employment Law Letter published, "Litigation: Confessions of an Employee's Lawyer," authored by Mr. Rubin. The Law Letter is a monthly publication aimed at management employment lawyers. Its editor, Kevin McCormick of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.P., wrote the following introduction to Mr. Rubin's article:

As many of you know, with each issue of Maryland Employment Law Letter, we try to provide a balanced interpretation of significant legal developments that Maryland employers and others should be aware of. Occassionally, it's helpful to break from that tradition and consider how a highly-regarded plaintiff's employment lawyer evaluates potential claims for litigation.

This month, we have the opportunity to get the "inside word" from James E. Rubin, a highly-regarded plaintiff's employment lawyer practicing in Montgomery County. I hope you find Jim's insights and prespective on what makes a good case for litigation from an employee's point of view very interesting and helpful.

On July 21, Mr. Rubin was a featured lecturer at a seminar titled,"Advanced Topics in The Family and Medical Leave Act." He lectured on key employees, fitness-for-duty certifications, the relationships among the Familty and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Maryland Workers' Compensation law, as well as recent judicial developments under the FMLA.

On April 14, the American Bar Association published, "WALKING THE LINE ON RELIGION, Age-Bias Suit Against Catholic Diocese Doesn't Play in Peoria or the 7th Circuit.". The article discusses Judge Posner's decision in Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria, No. 04-4219 (7th Cir. April 4). In Tomic, the Court ruled the ministerial exception barred a church organist's age discrimination suit. The ABA's article quotes Mr. Rubin as stating: "I think Tomic is the most ringing endorsement of the ministerial exception that I've read . . . There are arguments that the exception is eroding in certain circuits, but Posner really hit the nail on the head as to what is the ministerial exception. Any time a ministerial employee's job performance is at issue, the exception applies, and under the case law, the case should be dismissed. I wouldn't have expected any other outcome."

The Spring 2006 issue of the published "Doing God's work? Maryland Court of Appeals will Review how the Ministerial Exception Applies to Religious Employees." The article, authored by James Rubin, discussing Archdiocese of Washington v. Moerson, 389 Md. 124, 883 A.2d 914 (2005). In Moerson, the Maryland Court of Appeals is faced with deciding whether the ministerial exception applies to a church organist's tort claims against his former employer.

On February 28, The Pensions and Benefits Reporter (BNA) reported on Fair v. Giant of Maryland, LLC, a case Mr. Rubin litigated. Mr. Fair sued Giant seeking enhanced severance benefits under a 1997 change in control agreement. Giant contended that the agreement had expired and, in any event, did not apply to the merger of Giant and Stop and Shop, which occurred in 2003. The Court rejected Giant's arguments in part because Mr. Fair produced evidence showing the Giant intended the change in control agreement to apply to the merger. Based on evidence Mr. Fair produced, the Court also rejected Giant's claim that merger was not a change in control.

In January and February the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun reported on the efforts by thirteen former teachers of Eshkol Academy to recover wages from indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Mr. Abramoff was a major contributor to Eshkol Academy, which was located in Columbia, Maryland. Near the time when the Washington Post began publishing articles about the exorbitant lobbying fees Mr. Abramoff collected from Indian Tribes, Mr. Abramoff closed the Academy, owing the teachers approximately one quarter of their annual salaries.

When the suit was originally filed, the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted the teachers' request to freeze Mr. Abramoff's assets. The Court later overturned that order. During the course of the litigation, Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty to committing three felonies: fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. The plea agreement requires Abramoff to make restitution of $26.7 million to the IRS and to the Indian Tribes he defrauded.

As fallout from the Abramoff scandal, various politicians agreed to disgorge campaign contributions received from Mr. Abramoff. Mr. Rubin authored a letter to Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich requesting that he donate the contributions he received to the teachers. The Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun covered that effort in a series of articles, including:

"Incidental Victims of Abramoff's Largess,"

"The E-mail Stylings of Jack Abramoff"

"Old Habits Die Hard: How Jack Abramoff Wields Influence Even Now"

"Gov. Bobby Haircut Responds to Abramoff Victims"

"Ehrlich's lawyer denies teachers money"
The Rubin Employment Law Firm, PC - 11 North Washington Street, Suite 520 - Rockville, Maryland 20850 - (301) 760-7914
These materials have been prepared by The Rubin Employment Law Firm, P.C. for information purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between the sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
©Rubin Employment Law Firm, PC, All Rights Reserved.
Home - Attorney Profile - Testimonials - Practice Areas - Blog - In The News - FAQs - Location/Directions - Contact