Attorney Julie Glass Martin-Korb's Legal Cases

Employment and labor

Ocean City, Md, Chamber of Commerce v. Barufaldi, 75 A.3d 952 (Md. 2013)

Sep 24, 2013

OUTCOME: Plaintiff-Respondent won appeal.

In light of the purpose of the Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law, a trial court should exercise its discretion liberally in favor of making an attorney fee award, unless there is a good reason tha ... t militates against an award in the particular case. In this regard, it is not appropriate to apply the five factor test developed by the federal courts under the fee-shifting provision of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), in light of the federal statute’s distinct purpose and history that allows for two-way fee-shifting; moreover, application of the ERISA factors will likely be redundant or contradictory of findings already made in a wage payment action.

Employment and labor

Brandford v. Shannon-Baum Signs, Inc., No. 12-2116 (4th Cir. Apr. 4, 2013)

Apr 04, 2013

OUTCOME: Defendant-Appellee won appeal.

Employee who abandoned job failed to establish prima facie case of age or disability discrimination, or retaliation.

Employment and labor

Barufaldi v. Ocean City, Md. Chamber of Commerce, 47 A.3d 1097 (Md. App. 2012)

Jun 29, 2012

OUTCOME: Plaintiff-Appellant won appeal.

Trial court erred in denying attorney fees to successful plaintiff/appellant under the Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law. Five-factor test for determining whether to award fees under ERISA does n ... ot apply to MWPCL.

Appeals

Meade v. Shangri-La P’ship, 36 A.3d 483 (Md. 2012)

Jan 26, 2012

OUTCOME: Won appeal; favorable jury verdict reinstated.

CoA reverses judgment of CoSA and reinstates jury verdict. CoSA had reversed jury verdict in favor of Meade on her claims of handicap discrimination and retaliation on the grounds that she did not hav ... e a â€œhandicapâ€ within the meaning of Md. Code Art. 49B s 42 and the Howard County Code. CoA rejects the application of ADA caselaw, specifically Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) and Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999), to construe the Maryland state and county disability discrimination laws.

Employment and labor

Taylor v. Giant of Maryland LLC, 33 A. 3d 445 (Md. 2011)

Dec 06, 2011

OUTCOME: Wrote Amici Brief for MELA/MWELA.

The Md CoSA erred in (1) imposing an overly restrictive "adverse employment action" standard under the Prince George's County Human Relations Code; (2) holding that comparators must be virtually identi ... cal in all respects; (3) requiring the employee to provide direct evidence of "knowledge of protected activity; and (4) holding that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act preempted Taylor's discrimination and retaliation claims.

Appeals

Murray v. Rock Creek Intern'l School, No. 10-1424 (D.C.)

Apr 05, 2011

OUTCOME: Settled favorably after appeal brief filed.

Issues presented: 1) Did the trial court err when it failed to recognize that the plaintiffs had direct evidence of the defendants’ discriminatory motive which compelled denial of summary judgment? 2 ... ) Did the trial court err when it weighed the evidence at the summary judgment stage, in particular discounting the plaintiff’s deposition testimony regarding the defendants’ party admissions of racial animus simply because another witness “interpreted” the statements differently? 3) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs because it rejected the plaintiff’s affidavit setting forth her first-hand observations of the admissions of party-opponents as “hearsay” and “conclusory”? 4) Did the trial court err when it ruled as a matter of law that the plaintiffs were not the intended beneficiaries of a contract between the Washington Scholarship Fund and the U.S. Department of Education, despite that the principal purpose of the enabling legislation (the D.C. School Choice Incentive Act), the Fund, and the contract was to improve educational choices for low-income families in the District of Columbia, such as plaintiffs?

Employment and labor

Ruffin Hotel Corp. v. Gasper, 17 A.3d 676 (Md. 2011)

Mar 21, 2011

OUTCOME: Plaintiff-Respondent won appeal.

In retaliatory discharge, standard is that retaliation was motivating, not determinative, factor for discharge. Negligent hire/retention claims are not "preempted" by anti-discrimination law or worker ... s' compensation. Md. Rule Evid. 5-404(b) does not apply in civil cases. Webcast of oral argument is available at http://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals/media/2009/coa20091106-case24.wmv.

Employment and labor

Metropolitan Washington Orthopaedic Assoc., Chtd. v. Cervieri, No. 10-111 (Md. 2011)

Feb 25, 2011

OUTCOME: Wrote Amici Brief for MELA/MWELA/PJC.

Amici ask the Court to adopt two principles in construing the “bona fide dispute” provision of the MWPCL. The first principle examines the employer’s justification for withholding pay: A “bona fide ... dispute” within the meaning of the statute cannot arise from a counterclaim seeking a set-off for some debt allegedly owed to the employer that is not directly related to the reason, or justification for, why the employer did not pay the wages at issue in the action brought by the employee. The second principle evaluates the employer’s timing: A “bona fide dispute” as to the wage withheld cannot be generated post hoc by an employer’s discovery (or invention) of grounds upon which it could have withheld the wage, where those grounds were not the original and actual reason for withholding at the time the employer withheld.

Appeals

Middleton v. Ford, No. 09-1568 (Md. App. Feb. 16, 2011)

Feb 16, 2011

OUTCOME: Plaintiff-Appellee won appeal.

Trial court did not err in denying motion in limine seeking to introduce evidence of prior arbitration award for purpose of defensive, non-mutual collateral estoppel.

Employment and labor

Barufaldi v. Ocean City, Md. Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 7 A.3d 643 (Md. App. 2010)

Oct 28, 2010

OUTCOME: Appellant won on all issues on appeal.

Employer's failure to pay incentive-based compensation was material breach of employment contract. Refusing to pay incentive-based compensation because of personal conflicts and dissatisfaction with t ... he realities of the deal employer had struck would not constitute a “bona fide dispute" under Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law. Given that jury made predicate finding of "no bona fide dispute", and given remedial purposes of MWPCL, it was incumbent upon trial court to set forth particular circumstances militating against any award of fees in this case. Case remanded to address only attorney’s fees.

Julie Glass Martin-Korb's Legal Cases (22)

Ocean City, Md, Chamber of Commerce v. Barufaldi, 75 A.3d 952 (Md. 2013)

Brandford v. Shannon-Baum Signs, Inc., No. 12-2116 (4th Cir. Apr. 4, 2013)

Barufaldi v. Ocean City, Md. Chamber of Commerce, 47 A.3d 1097 (Md. App. 2012)

Meade v. Shangri-La P’ship, 36 A.3d 483 (Md. 2012)

Taylor v. Giant of Maryland LLC, 33 A. 3d 445 (Md. 2011)

Murray v. Rock Creek Intern'l School, No. 10-1424 (D.C.)

Ruffin Hotel Corp. v. Gasper, 17 A.3d 676 (Md. 2011)

Metropolitan Washington Orthopaedic Assoc., Chtd. v. Cervieri, No. 10-111 (Md. 2011)

Middleton v. Ford, No. 09-1568 (Md. App. Feb. 16, 2011)

Barufaldi v. Ocean City, Md. Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 7 A.3d 643 (Md. App. 2010)