Call: 410-522-1020

News and Resources
Uncategorized

LUCHANSKY LAW ENFORCEMENT ALERT: Maryland Trucking Company Ordered to Pay $46K in Back Wages and Damages; Driver Reinstated After Whistleblower Investigation

TrueStart Transport LLC, a Maugansville-based freight and heavy-haul trucking provider, has been ordered by the U.S. Department of Labor to pay $46,094 in back wages and damages to an employee wrongfully terminated for refusing to drive an oversized load without the required safety precautions. This decision follows an investigation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which found that TrueStart Transport violated the whistleblower protections under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). Key Findings: The employee raised safety concerns after being directed to transport an oversized load without the legally required escort vehicle. After refusing to drive the load under unsafe conditions, the company terminated the employee and left them stranded at a Tennessee truck stop, forcing them to pay for their return home to Texas. OSHA determined the company’s actions were retaliatory, violating the employee’s federally protected right to refuse unsafe work. Penalties Imposed: $9,698 in back wages and interest. $10,000 in punitive damages. $26,396 in compensatory damages for the wrongful termination and financial losses incurred. Additionally, OSHA ordered TrueStart Transport to reinstate the driver to their previous position, emphasizing that an employee’s right to raise safety concerns is protected under federal law. Employer Takeaways: Employers must understand the critical importance of complying with federal whistleblower protection laws. Firing or retaliating against employees who raise safety concerns is not only illegal but can result in significant financial penalties and reputational damage. Employers should ensure they have proper procedures in place to handle employee safety complaints and avoid similar costly outcomes. See the DOL Press Release here. For more information on whistleblower protections under federal law, visit OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Programs. About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204. 

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Oct 27 No Comments
Employer's Toolbox

Maryland’s Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) Program: Key Details and Implications for Employers

Maryland is preparing to implement the Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) Program: Are you Prepared?  Maryland is on track to implement the Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) Program, which will enable eligible employees to take paid time off for a range of personal and family health reasons beginning July 1, 2026. This initiative, administered by the Maryland Department of Labor, is designed to support employees’ ability to maintain workforce participation while managing significant life events, such as serious health conditions or family caregiving responsibilities. What the Program Offers The FAMLI Program provides employees with a wage replacement benefit of up to $1,000 per week during qualified leave periods, covering up to 12 weeks in a 12-month period. Employees facing multiple qualifying events may be eligible for an additional 12 weeks, allowing up to 24 weeks in total if necessary. Key Elements of the Program Eligibility Requirements: To be eligible, employees must have worked at least 680 hours within the 12 months preceding their requested leave. This threshold ensures that workers have an established connection to the workforce, enabling them to take advantage of the benefits after meeting this baseline requirement. Funding and Contributions: Contributions to the FAMLI fund will commence on July 1, 2025, funded by payroll contributions from both employers and employees. Employers with 15 or more employees will share this responsibility, each contributing 0.45% of wages. Smaller employers (fewer than 15 employees) are exempt from contributing, but their employees will still contribute their portion. This funding structure ensures a balanced approach, minimizing the financial impact on smaller businesses while enabling widespread access to paid leave for Maryland workers. Qualifying Events for Leave: Employees may use FAMLI benefits for various situations, including: Family Care: Caring for a newborn or recently adopted child. Serious Health Condition: Addressing a personal or family member’s significant medical issues. Military Situations: Managing issues related to the deployment or service of a family member in the military. These qualifying events are aligned with the challenges many employees face, particularly in supporting immediate family members or addressing their own health needs. Employer Compliance and Administration: The Maryland Department of Labor is responsible for overseeing the program’s implementation and compliance. Employers will need to understand their responsibilities in processing contributions, notifying employees of their rights, and ensuring that workplace policies reflect the new paid leave options. Employers may find that facilitating this leave enhances employee satisfaction and retention, as workers will have the support needed to balance personal responsibilities with their professional roles. Benefits for Employers and Employees The FAMLI Program is expected to positively impact workforce stability by reducing employee turnover and promoting a healthy work-life balance. Research shows that access to paid leave can lead to improved employee morale, higher retention rates, and increased productivity. For employees, FAMLI offers the financial stability to take necessary leave without jeopardizing their income or employment. Preparing for FAMLI Implementation Employers should start preparing for FAMLI by: Reviewing Payroll Processes: Ensure payroll systems can manage the collection and remittance of contributions starting in 2025. Updating Employee Policies: Integrate FAMLI information into employee handbooks and leave policies. Educating Staff: Inform employees about their eligibility and benefits, emphasizing how the program can support them through various life events. As Maryland moves closer to full FAMLI implementation, employers and employees alike should familiarize themselves with the program details. This proactive approach will help ensure that workplaces across Maryland are ready to support their staff’s needs while meeting regulatory requirements. For the latest updates, employers and employees can visit Maryland Department of Labor’s FAMLI. About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.  References: MD Department of Labor Maryland Paid Leave

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Oct 27 No Comments
Employer's Toolbox

AI in Hiring: Key Lessons from the Workday Bias Suit for Employers

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape hiring practices, employers are increasingly facing legal challenges related to potential discrimination. The recent Workday AI Bias Lawsuit serves as a significant reminder of the risks associated with automated decision tools (ADTs). In this case, Workday was accused of using an AI system that allegedly discriminated against minority job applicants, raising questions about the fairness and transparency of AI tools in recruitment. AI Discrimination and Regulatory Landscape The Workday lawsuit is part of a growing body of legal cases addressing the role of AI in hiring decisions. While AI offers efficiency and speed, it can also perpetuate or amplify biases if not properly monitored. This has caught the attention of lawmakers and regulators, leading to stricter guidelines around AI use in employment. States like New York and New Jersey have already introduced legislation requiring employers to conduct annual bias audits on their AI tools to prevent algorithmic discrimination. These laws mandate that AI tools must undergo independent reviews, and employers are required to notify candidates if AI is used in the hiring process. Best Practices for Employers Using AI in Hiring In light of the Workday lawsuit and the evolving regulatory environment, there are several key steps employers should take to minimize the risk of discrimination claims: Conduct Bias AuditsEmployers must ensure that their AI systems undergo regular bias audits to identify any potential discriminatory outcomes. These audits help safeguard against violations of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Ensure Human OversightAI tools should not be the sole decision-maker in hiring processes. Employers need to maintain human oversight to review decisions made by AI and ensure fairness, especially in cases where candidates from protected classes might be affected. Transparency and Employee NotificationEmployers should be transparent with applicants and employees about the use of AI in hiring. This includes notifying candidates when AI tools are used and providing them with the opportunity to request a review or challenge the decision. Comply with Federal and State GuidelinesEmployers should stay informed about both state-specific and federal guidelines on the use of AI in hiring. For example, the Department of Labor (DOL) recommends that employers using AI tools regularly test these systems to ensure they do not violate laws related to wage calculations or disability accommodations. Looking Ahead As AI tools become more common in hiring, employers must be proactive in addressing the risks of algorithmic bias. The lessons from the Workday case, along with new state and federal regulations, underscore the need for transparency, regular auditing, and human oversight. By taking these steps, employers can leverage the benefits of AI while minimizing the risk of discrimination claims. About Luchansky Law  Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.  References  Bias Audits and Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/americans-disabilities-act-and-use-software-algorithms-and-artificial-intelligence Human Oversight Recommendations: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/04/aiming-truth-fairness-equity-your-companys-use-ai Transparency and Employee Notification: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.100-1.pdf State and Federal Compliance: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osec/osec20241016 Future Considerations on Algorithmic Bias: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-eeoc-wants-to-make-ai-hiring-fairer-for-people-with-disabilities/  

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Oct 27 No Comments
Employee Agreements

FTC Appeals Ruling Against Noncompete Ban: What Employers Need to Know

On October 18, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officially filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging a district court ruling that struck down the agency’s proposed ban on most noncompete agreements. This move follows the August 20 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which concluded that the FTC overstepped its authority in issuing such a sweeping rule. The ruling was a significant victory for employers using noncompete agreements, but the battle is far from over.   Background on the FTC’s Noncompete Ban The FTC initially approved the noncompete ban in April 2024, aiming to prohibit employers from entering into or enforcing noncompete agreements with most U.S. workers. The agency argued that noncompetes suppress wages, stifle innovation, and limit competition. The proposed rule was set to affect nearly 30 million employees, or about 20% of the U.S. workforce, and was scheduled to take effect on September 4. In particular, the ban targeted agreements that prevent workers from taking jobs at rival firms or starting their own businesses in the same industry. The rule included exceptions for specific sectors, such as airlines and financial services, and carved out allowances for senior executives earning more than $151,000 annually.   The Court’s Ruling: Ryan LLC v. FTC The court’s August ruling, brought forward by tax services provider Ryan LLC and various business groups, dealt a major blow to the FTC. U.S. District Judge Ada E. Brown ruled that the agency did not have the authority to impose such a broad regulation, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.” According to the court, the FTC’s blanket ban ignored the legitimate business interests of employers, such as protecting trade secrets and preventing the loss of key employees to competitors.   What Happens Next? As the appeal process unfolds, employers must remain vigilant. The district court ruling has temporarily blocked the FTC’s ban from going into effect, but there is still uncertainty. Should the Fifth Circuit rule in favor of the FTC, employers may face a new regulatory landscape in which noncompete agreements are drastically limited.   Key Considerations for Employers While the appeal works its way through the courts, employers should take proactive steps to prepare for potential outcomes. Here are several actions businesses can consider: Review Current Agreements: Now is the time to conduct a thorough audit of any existing noncompete agreements. Ensure they comply with applicable state laws, which still govern noncompetes in the absence of a federal ban. Focus on Alternatives: In the event that noncompete agreements are further restricted or banned, employers can explore other legal tools to protect sensitive information. Confidentiality agreements, nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), and nonsolicitation agreements are common alternatives. Monitor Legal Developments: Stay updated on federal and state-level legal changes. The appeal in the Fifth Circuit could take months or longer, but the impact will be significant for businesses that rely on noncompetes.   The Broader Debate: Employers vs. Workers’ Rights The FTC’s proposed rule and subsequent litigation underscore the ongoing debate between employer rights and worker mobility. While advocates of noncompete agreements argue they are essential for protecting trade secrets and investments in employee training, critics claim they unfairly limit job opportunities and suppress wages. As the legal landscape continues to shift, businesses must be ready to adapt to new regulations while safeguarding their competitive interests. At Luchansky Law, we are closely monitoring the developments in this case and are available to assist employers in reviewing and revising their employment agreements. If you have questions about how the FTC’s proposed ban or the current appeal might affect your business, contact our team with questions.    About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.    References  Federal Trade Commission. (2024, October 18). FTC appeals decision in Ryan LLC v. FTC. Retrieved from FTCPress Release U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2024). U.S. Chamber challenges FTC noncompete rule in court. Retrieved from U.S. Chamber of Commerce website Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2024, October 19). SHRM’s response to the FTC noncompete rule appeal. Retrieved from SHRM.org  

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Oct 23 No Comments
Employer's Toolbox

When Telework Isn’t a Reasonable Accommodation: Lessons from the D.C. Circuit

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit highlights a key issue in the employment law space: the importance of engaging in a meaningful, interactive process when employees request accommodations for disabilities. This case makes it clear that employers cannot simply mandate telework as a one-size-fits-all solution, especially when an employee requests a different accommodation. The Case: An Economist’s Struggle at the EPA The plaintiff in this case was an economist working for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He had long suffered from severe allergies that caused rashes, breathing difficulties, and other symptoms when exposed to environmental triggers, such as certain perfumes and colognes. For nearly a decade, he worked in a private office without issue. However, following an office reshuffling in 2007, he was relocated to a cubicle, which eventually triggered his allergies again. In 2011, a co-worker known for wearing strong cologne was seated nearby, exacerbating the plaintiff’s condition. He reached out to management and requested to be moved to a private office or a small conference room. Although management acknowledged his request, they took minimal action. Ultimately, the EPA offered him 100% telework as a solution, despite the fact that the plaintiff had not requested to work from home. In fact, he had expressed concerns about the feasibility of working remotely, citing the lack of a proper home office and the need to interact with colleagues in person. When the EPA refused to consider other accommodations, the plaintiff filed a formal complaint, alleging failure to accommodate his disability under the Rehabilitation Act. The case eventually made its way to the D.C. Circuit, where the court found that the EPA failed to engage in a meaningful discussion with the employee about his objections to telework. The court reversed a lower court ruling in favor of the EPA, allowing the plaintiff to proceed to trial. Why This Case Matters: The Interactive Process is Key This case serves as a crucial reminder for employers: handling accommodation requests is not just about offering a solution; it’s about collaborating with employees to find a reasonable accommodation that works for both parties. Here are the major lessons for employers: Engage in Good Faith Dialogue: When an employee requests an accommodation, it’s essential to listen to their specific concerns and engage in a meaningful, interactive dialogue. Employers cannot unilaterally decide what accommodation is best without considering the employee’s perspective. Accommodations Are Not One-Size-Fits-All: Telework may be reasonable for some employees, but it isn’t the solution for everyone. In this case, the plaintiff preferred working in the office with adjustments to his work environment. Employers need to assess each accommodation request based on the employee’s individual circumstances. Timely and Transparent Responses Are Crucial: Employers should not delay addressing accommodation requests, and they should provide clear, documented reasons if an employee’s preferred accommodation cannot be met. In this case, the EPA’s slow and incomplete responses to the plaintiff’s requests played a significant role in the legal outcome. Avoid Assumptions: The court criticized the EPA for assuming that telework was a sufficient solution without considering the plaintiff’s objections. Employers should avoid making assumptions about what might work and instead engage in a back-and-forth discussion to ensure the accommodation meets the employee’s needs. Takeaway for Employers The D.C. Circuit’s decision reminds employers of their obligation to engage in a cooperative and thoughtful process when handling accommodation requests. While employers are not required to provide the exact accommodation an employee requests, they must consider the request carefully and respond in good faith. Ignoring the interactive process, as the EPA did in this case, can lead to costly legal challenges. At Luchansky Law, we help employers navigate the complexities of workplace accommodation requests, ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related laws like the Rehabilitation Act. For assistance with accommodation requests or other labor and employment law issues, contact us today.  About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.  References: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Smith v. EPA, Case No. 19-1234 (2023) Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Oct 18 No Comments
Employer's Toolbox

Employers Can Challenge FMLA Certifications Without Obtaining Additional Medical Opinions

Employers across the country are increasingly faced with the question of whether they must seek additional medical opinions when challenging a doctor’s certification under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). A recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals clarifies that employers are not obligated to do so. This decision aligns with rulings from other circuits and affirms that the FMLA does not require employers to present contrary medical evidence before contesting an employee’s FMLA certification in court.   Case Overview: Contesting the Validity of an FMLA Claim The case involved an underground haul truck driver who alleged that his employer, a mining company, wrongfully interfered with his FMLA rights after being terminated. The driver claimed he had been injured when his truck collided with a mine wall, and a doctor subsequently certified his need for time off due to chest injuries. However, after an investigation by the employer revealed no evidence of a collision and video surveillance suggested the employee was exaggerating his condition, the driver was fired for policy violations. He then filed a lawsuit claiming that his termination violated his FMLA rights.   The Court’s Decision The central question in the case was whether the employer was required to obtain a second or third medical opinion before challenging the doctor’s certification. The 9th Circuit ruled that the FMLA does not impose such a requirement. Instead, the statute gives employers the option—but not the obligation—to seek a second or third medical opinion if they doubt the validity of an employee’s certification. The court’s ruling emphasized that the language of the FMLA is permissive, not mandatory. The employer “may” request additional opinions, but it is not legally compelled to do so. As long as the employer has sufficient evidence to challenge the legitimacy of the employee’s claim, it can rely on nonmedical evidence, such as surveillance footage, to contest the certification.   Implications for Employers This ruling has important implications for employers who are skeptical about the validity of an employee’s FMLA certification. The decision clarifies that employers can rely on evidence such as witness testimony or video surveillance to dispute an FMLA claim without needing to secure further medical opinions. This can streamline the process for employers who face instances of potential fraud or exaggeration of medical conditions. However, employers should continue to exercise caution and ensure they have substantial evidence before contesting an FMLA certification. Missteps could lead to claims of FMLA interference or retaliation. Employers are advised to carefully document any investigations, including reports and witness statements, to build a strong case when challenging a certification.   Consult Legal Advice on Suspected FMLA Abuse  The 9th Circuit’s ruling strengthens the position of employers in FMLA disputes by confirming that they are not required to seek additional medical opinions before challenging an employee’s certification. Employers who suspect FMLA abuse now have greater flexibility in contesting dubious claims, provided they have a solid foundation of evidence. As always, employers should consult legal counsel before taking action to ensure compliance with the FMLA and related regulations. If you have questions on this issue or any other labor and employment matter, please contact Luchansky Law.    About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.    References: Lally, R. J.D. (2024, September 19). Employers Do Not Have to Seek Additional Medical Opinions Before Contesting FMLA Certification. Retrieved from SHRM. Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (1993).  

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Oct 10 No Comments
Employer's Toolbox

Missed the Deadline? How to Comply with Maryland’s Wage Range Transparency Act Post-October 1

Maryland Wage Range Transparency Act: What Employers Need to Know and Do Now By Luchansky Law Maryland’s Wage Range Transparency Act took effect on October 1, 2024, expanding the state’s Equal Pay for Equal Work law. This law mandates employers to disclose wage ranges in job postings, aiming to increase transparency and reduce wage disparities. If you missed the deadline, it’s essential to act now to bring your business into compliance and avoid potential penalties. Key Requirements for Employers Wage Range Disclosure: Employers must include the minimum and maximum salary or hourly rate in all job postings, both public and internal. Wage ranges should reflect existing pay scales, historical wages, or the employer’s budget for the position. Benefits and Compensation: In addition to wage ranges, employers need to provide a general description of benefits and other compensation (e.g., bonuses, allowances). If a job was posted without these details, employers must promptly disclose this information upon the applicant’s request. No Retaliation: Employers cannot retaliate against employees or applicants who inquire about wage information, nor can employment decisions be based on prior wage history unless it is voluntarily disclosed after an offer is extended. Steps to Take Now Audit Job Postings: Review all job postings to include the required wage range and benefits descriptions. Update postings where information is missing, and be prepared to disclose this information if requested by applicants. Train HR Staff: Ensure HR personnel understand the new requirements and are prepared to respond to wage inquiries and handle applicant requests without any retaliatory actions. Maintain Wage Records: Keep records of wage disclosures and any related documentation for three years to demonstrate compliance in case of an audit or complaint. Why Compliance Matters Wage transparency laws like Maryland’s are part of a larger movement toward closing pay gaps related to gender and race. With similar requirements in states like California and New York, compliance helps promote fairness and increase transparency in hiring practices. Employers who do not comply may face escalating penalties from Maryland’s Commissioner of Labor and Industry. Act Now to Avoid Penalties If you missed the October 1 deadline, it’s not too late to align your hiring practices with Maryland’s new legal landscape. Luchansky Law can help you bring your job postings and policies into compliance, train your staff, and reduce the risk of penalties. Contact us today to schedule a consultation and take the first steps toward meeting Maryland’s wage transparency requirements. About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204. 

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Oct 4 No Comments
Firm News

Luchansky Law Celebrates 20th Anniversary Milestone

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   Towson, MD – Luchansky Law, a leading firm specializing in labor and employment law, proudly announces its 20th anniversary. Since its founding in 2004, Luchansky Law has provided expert legal counsel and exceptional client service, achieving remarkable success and growth over the past two decades.   Under the leadership of Bruce Luchansky, the firm has earned a reputation for diligence, professionalism, and compassion, offering personalized and strategic legal solutions to a diverse clientele. Employment and wage law attorneys at Luchansky Law are champions for employers and executive level employees. Recognizing that employees are the lifeblood of any business—but which often is accompanied by intricate legal complications—the firm specializes in navigating workplace challenges with a balanced approach that serves all parties involved.   “Reaching this 20-year milestone is a testament to our entire team’s hard work, dedication, and passion,” said Bruce Luchansky, Founder and Managing Partner. “We are grateful to our clients, colleagues, and the legal community for their trust and support. As we look to the future, we remain committed to delivering outstanding legal services and fostering long-term relationships.”   Companies hiring Luchansky Law tap into the experience needed to solve complex workplace issues. Unlike many law firms who offer technical or theoretical solutions that may work on paper but not in real life, Luchansky Law focuses on giving clients practical and sound legal advice. The firm combines legal knowledge and practical experience to find the correct legal answers that align with client’s business needs.   Luchansky Law will host a celebratory event later this year to commemorate this significant occasion. The event will bring together clients, colleagues, and community partners to reflect on the firm’s achievements and discuss future initiatives.   The firm’s dedication to client success and ethical practice has been the cornerstone of its enduring legacy. For more information about Luchansky Law please visit https://employmentattorneymd.com.    About Luchansky Law Luchansky Law is a premier labor and employment law firm committed to providing exceptional legal representation and client service. Founded in 2004 by Bruce Luchansky, the firm offers a wide range of legal services to businesses and individuals, focusing on workplace issues, employment disputes, and compliance. Luchansky Law is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of diligence, professionalism, and compassion in its practice. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204. 

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Sep 4 No Comments
Firm News

Luchansky Law Adds New Associate

For Immediate Release    We are pleased to announce that Lazar Krintzman has joined Luchansky Law as an associate attorney. Lazar focuses on labor and employment law, where his practice is concentrated on advising employers on legal issues that arise in the workplace. He brings his expertise to the drafting and implementation of employment contracts, handbooks, and separation agreements, ensuring that businesses comply with current regulations and are well-prepared for legal challenges. In addition, Lazar supports the firm’s active litigation practice.   Before joining Luchansky Law, Lazar was an associate at a prominent Baltimore law firm, where he gained substantial experience in commercial litigation and real estate transactions. His background also includes serving as general counsel for two large real estate companies, where he managed the legal affairs for a portfolio of 6,000 units across multiple states.   Lazar is actively involved in his community, serving as the Immediate Past President of Cheder Chabad, an elementary school with over 400 students. He resides in Baltimore, Maryland, with his wife and family.   Lazar earned his J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where he received a Dean’s Merit Full Scholarship, and holds a B.A. from Tomchei Temimim. He is admitted to practice law in Maryland and New York.   We are excited to have Lazar on board and look forward to the valuable contributions he will bring to Luchansky Law and our clients. Please join us in welcoming him to the team!     About Luchansky Law    Luchansky Law specializes in resolving workplace disputes for employers and employees across Maryland. Our attorneys bring extensive experience and a practical approach to protecting your rights, navigating new regulations, and ensuring compliance. Our team combines legal expertise and practical experience to solve workplace challenges and meet legal and business needs effectively. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204. CONTACT US

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Aug 28 No Comments
Uncategorized

Texas Federal Court Blocks FTC’s Ban on Noncompete Agreements: What This Means for Employers

In a significant legal decision, a federal court in Texas has struck down the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed ban on noncompete agreements. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Ada Brown, has halted a sweeping regulatory change that was set to take effect on September 4th, 2024. The decision is a pivotal moment for businesses nationwide, preserving the ability to use noncompete agreements as a tool to protect trade secrets and maintain competitive advantage. The Legal Challenge by Ryan, LLC The lawsuit challenging the FTC’s rule was brought by Ryan, LLC, a Dallas-based tax services firm, just hours after the FTC’s narrow vote to implement the ban. Ryan, joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other major business organizations, argued that the FTC had overstepped its legal authority. Judge Brown agreed, ruling that the FTC lacked the power to enact such a broad prohibition on noncompete agreements. In her opinion, Judge Brown stated, “The FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition. The role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency think[s] it should do.” Impact on Companies and Business Owners The ruling has several key implications for companies and business owners: Continued Use of Noncompetes: Businesses can continue to utilize noncompete agreements to protect sensitive information, intellectual property, and client relationships. Ryan, LLC, emphasized that noncompetes are essential for safeguarding their confidential data and preventing competitors from poaching trained employees. John Smith, General Counsel for Ryan, stated, “Judge Brown’s ruling preserves the economic freedom of businesses and their employees to enter into non-compete agreements. They play a vital role in safeguarding intellectual property and innovation, building trust within businesses, and investing in training their people.” Legal Landscape Remains Uncertain: While this ruling provides relief for businesses, the legal future of noncompete agreements is still in flux. The FTC has expressed its disappointment and is considering an appeal. Additionally, the FTC may pursue a strategy of case-by-case enforcement, potentially leading to further legal battles and regulatory scrutiny. Economic and Employment Considerations: The FTC had argued that banning noncompetes would enhance economic liberty, allowing workers to freely change jobs, pursue better opportunities, and, as a result, stimulate economic growth. According to the FTC, the ban could have led to wage increases totaling nearly $300 billion annually and the creation of 8,500 new businesses each year. However, with the ban blocked, these potential benefits will not be realized under the current legal framework. State-Level Variability: Even with the federal ban blocked, state laws governing noncompetes vary significantly. Some states, like California, have strict limitations or outright bans on noncompetes, while others enforce them under specific conditions. Businesses operating across multiple states must stay informed about the local laws to ensure their noncompete agreements are enforceable. The Broader Debate on Noncompetes The debate over noncompete agreements highlights a broader tension between protecting business interests and promoting worker mobility and economic freedom. FTC Chair Lina Khan has been a vocal critic of noncompetes, arguing that they stifle competition, suppress wages, and prevent workers from pursuing better employment opportunities. “The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy,” Khan said when the rule was first introduced. The FTC estimated that the new rule could have unlocked significant economic benefits by allowing workers to move freely between jobs without the fear of legal repercussions. Conclusion The ruling by Judge Ada Brown is a critical victory for businesses like Ryan, LLC, preserving their ability to use noncompete agreements to protect their interests. However, the legal landscape surrounding noncompetes remains unsettled, with potential appeals and ongoing state-level challenges likely to shape the future of these agreements. For companies, this ruling underscores the importance of staying vigilant and informed about the evolving legal environment. Businesses should ensure that their noncompete agreements are carefully drafted and comply with the latest legal standards to protect their interests effectively. At Luchansky Law, we are committed to helping businesses navigate these complex legal issues. If you have questions about noncompete agreements or other employment law matters, please contact us for expert guidance. About Luchansky Law  Luchansky Law specializes in resolving workplace disputes for employers and employees across Maryland. Our attorneys bring extensive experience and a practical approach to protecting your rights, navigating new regulations, and ensuring compliance. Our team combines legal expertise and practical experience to solve workplace challenges and meet legal and business needs effectively. Please call (410) 522-1020, email us at info@luchanskylaw.com, or stop by our office at 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B, Towson, Maryland, 21204.  CONTACT US   References: Luchansky Law’s previous post on FTC’s Ban on Noncompete agreements Faces Divided Federal rulings  U.S. District Court rulings and related news reports.

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Aug 22 No Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

Tag Cloud

Tags
ADA AI Business’s Employee Policies Chevon compliance Disability Discrimination Claims EEOC employee Employee Policies employee protection employee protection laws employee rights employer employers contracts employment exploitation employment law employment law attorney employment lawyers exploitation Failure to Pay Wages or Overtime Pay FLSA FMLA FMLIA FSLA Improve Your Workplace labor attorneys labor exploitation labor law compliance maryland maryland department of labor Maryland Employment Law Maryland employment lawyers Maryland employment lawyers for employers Non-Compete Agreements Reasonable accomodation Review of Employment Agreements SCOTUS Small business Unauthorized Deductions workplace harassment laws workplace harassment regulations workplace harrasment attorney worplace harassment wrongful termination
Schedule a confidential consultation.
Click Here

Let's talk.

Call us at 410-522-1020 or fill out the form below to receive a confidential initial consultation.

Name
Untitled

Luchansky Law is here to make the process as easy as possible for our clients while fully protecting their rights and pursuing the best results possible.

Linkedin Store

Menu

Recent Posts

Contact Us