join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 3

Maryland's Healthy Working Families Act Requires Employers in the State to Provide Sick/Safe Leave

Executive Summary: On January 12, 2018, the Maryland Legislature overrode Governor Hogan’s 2017 veto of the Maryland Healthy Working Families Act (the “Act”). As a result, Maryland employers with 15 or more employees are now required to provide for up to 40 hours of paid sick leave on annual basis to eligible employees, and employers with 14 or fewer employees must provide up to 40 hours of unpaid sick/safe leave on an annual basis to eligible employees. In addition to the sick leave requirement, the Act imposes notification and recordkeeping requirements and sets out a significant enforcement scheme that includes the potential imposition of treble damage penalties for violations.

Prince George's County, Maryland Enacts Paid "Safe" Time Law

On December 12, 2017, Prince George’s County, Maryland enacted Bill Number CB-87-2017, which mandates that covered employees be allowed to accrue and use paid leave for absences connected to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. For employers covered by one or more paid sick and safe time (PSST) laws – such as Montgomery County’s – the new law will be familiar because it follows the framework, and contains many of the same provisions, common to PSST laws. A key difference is that leave under the Prince George’s County law may only be used for what is more commonly known as “safe time.”1 The law is scheduled to take effect 45 calendar days after the Maryland General Assembly adjourns in 2018. The General Assembly is scheduled to adjourn on April 9, 2018,2 setting the effective date at May 24, 2018. Below we discuss what the law requires and highlight common areas of concern to employers where the law is silent.3

Can a Massachusetts Religious School Refuse to Employ a Worker in a Same Sex Marriage

In Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy, the Massachusetts Superior Court curtailed various statutory and constitutional defenses available to an employer affiliated with a religious institution that faces discrimination claims under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B, the state’s antidiscrimination law.