Call: 410-522-1020

News and Resources
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
Uncategorized

Overtime Recovered: Understanding the Costly Mistake of Misclassifying Employees

In a recent case, the U.S. Department of Labor recovered $288,979 in back wages and damages for 92 employees from American Management Group of North Florida LLC. This significant recovery highlights a common misconception among employers: the belief that paying an employee a salary automatically exempts them from overtime requirements. This case underscores the importance of understanding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the potential consequences of misclassifying employees. The Case: A Cautionary Tale American Management Group, operating primarily in the Southeast, was found to have improperly classified employees as exempt from overtime. The investigation revealed several violations: Shaving Hours: The company reduced hours from workers’ timecards, effectively denying them overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Misuse of Salary: Some employees were paid a flat salary without properly calculating overtime, including failing to factor in bonuses and commissions. Violation of the FLSA: These practices were found to be in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, leading to significant financial penalties and back wages owed to the affected employees. In addition to the back wages and damages, American Management Group was also assessed a $15,000 civil money penalty, emphasizing the willful nature of the violations. The Importance of Proper Classification This case serves as a crucial reminder for employers about the importance of proper employee classification. Simply paying a salary does not exempt an employee from overtime pay. The FLSA has specific criteria that must be met to classify an employee as exempt, including job duties and salary thresholds. Failing to adhere to these regulations can result in significant financial consequences and damage to a company’s reputation. Avoiding Common Pitfalls To avoid these pitfalls, employers should: Review Job Classifications Regularly: Ensure that all employees are correctly classified according to the FLSA guidelines. Educate Management: Make sure that managers and HR personnel are aware of the laws surrounding overtime and employee classification. Utilize Resources: Your employment lawyer can help you navigate the confusing legal standards for determining whether your salaried employees are exempt from overtime based on the job duties they perform.  The subtle nuances in the law require both a knowledge of the rules and the experience to know how they are applied. Conclusion The recovery of nearly $289,000 in back wages and damages from American Management Group is a stark example of the costly mistakes that can arise from misunderstanding overtime laws. Employers must stay informed and diligent in their compliance efforts to avoid similar outcomes. At Luchansky Law, we are dedicated to helping businesses navigate these complex regulations and ensure fair and lawful employment practices. For more information on how to properly classify employees and comply with labor laws, contact Luchansky Law. Let’s work together to create a fair and compliant workplace. 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   Resources  ·  U.S. Department of Labor – Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Overview ·  U.S. Department of Labor – Fact Sheet on Overtime Pay Requirements ·  U.S. Department of Labor – Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Resources ·  U.S. Department of Labor – Timesheet App  

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Aug 1 No Comments
Non-Compete Agreements

Navigating Uncertainty: FTC’s Ban on Noncompete Agreements Faces Divided Federal Rulings

The legal landscape surrounding noncompete agreements has recently become more complex following conflicting rulings from federal courts. On July 23, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined to halt the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) ban on noncompete agreements. This decision contrasts sharply with a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas earlier this month, which granted a preliminary injunction and postponed the rule’s effective date for the plaintiffs.   With two rulings and two different results, total uncertainty is now facing employers, employees, and the employment market. The enforceability of the FTC rule banning noncompetes will be resolved after its effective date of September 4, leaving businesses and employees in limbo.   In the Pennsylvania case, ATS Tree Services challenged the FTC’s authority, but the court sided with the FTC. The judge concluded that ATS Tree Services failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its case. Unlike the Texas plaintiffs, ATS did not seek a nationwide injunction. This case, ATS Tree Services LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, highlights the divergent judicial opinions on the FTC’s regulatory powers.   The Pennsylvania court’s decision affirmed the FTC’s authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to promulgate rules prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The court emphasized that the plain text of the Act does not impose express limitations on the FTC’s rulemaking authority, and it declined to interpret any such limitations.   Conversely, the Texas court’s ruling has temporarily shielded organizations challenging the FTC’s rule from having to comply until their litigation is resolved. The court plans to rule on the merits of the case by August 30. This split in rulings underscores the ongoing legal debate and the potential for further legal battles over the scope and implementation of the FTC’s noncompete ban.   The FTC’s rule, set to take effect on September 4, bans most new noncompete clauses in employment contracts and renders existing noncompete agreements unenforceable, except for those covering senior executives earning more than $151,164 annually in policymaking positions. This sweeping regulation has significant implications for millions of workers and employers. For businesses navigating these uncertain times, staying informed and proactive in understanding these legal changes is crucial. At Luchansky Law, we closely monitor these developments and are ready to assist employers in understanding the implications of these rulings and preparing for the potential impact on their workforce and operations.   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 Resources  Pennsylvania District Court’s Decision: For details on the Pennsylvania court ruling, refer to ATS Tree Services LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, E.D. Pa., 2:24-cv-01743. Texas Court Ruling: Information on the Texas court ruling can be found in the preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Comments and Advocacy by SHRM: For more on SHRM’s position and actions, visit the SHRM website or relevant press releases.

Read More »
Pivotal Digital Jul 25 No Comments
Employer's Toolbox

New Government Proposed Heat Protection Rules: What Maryland Small Business Owners Need to Know

The Biden-Harris Administration recently announced a proposed rule to protect indoor and outdoor workers from the dangers of extreme heat. This significant step, spearheaded by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), has broad implications for businesses nationwide, including those in Maryland.   The Proposed Rule: A Brief Overview The proposed rule is designed to safeguard approximately 36 million workers in indoor and outdoor settings by mandating that employers take specific steps to mitigate the risks posed by excessive heat. Key components of the rule include: Injury and Illness Prevention Plans: Employers must develop comprehensive plans to manage heat hazards. Evaluation and Mitigation of Heat Risks: Measures such as providing drinking water, rest breaks, and controlling indoor temperatures are required. Protection for New and Returning Workers: Employers must have protocols for workers not acclimated to high heat conditions. Training and Emergency Procedures: Employers must train employees to recognize and respond to heat-related illnesses and have procedures in place for emergencies.   Impact on Maryland Small Businesses This rule could mean significant changes in workplace safety protocols for small business owners in Maryland, particularly those in industries like construction, agriculture, and manufacturing. Here are some key considerations: Implementation Costs: Small businesses must invest resources to comply with the new requirements. This might include purchasing cooling equipment, providing additional rest breaks, and ensuring employees have access to adequate hydration. Training and Compliance: Businesses must allocate time and resources to train employees on heat safety. This training includes educating them on recognizing signs of heat-related illnesses and implementing immediate response measures. Recordkeeping and Documentation: Employers will need to maintain detailed records of their heat prevention plans and the measures they are taking to protect their workers. This documentation will be crucial in demonstrating compliance during OSHA inspections.   Benefits for Small Businesses While the proposed rule may initially seem burdensome, it also offers several benefits for small businesses: Reduced Health Risks: By proactively addressing heat hazards, businesses can significantly reduce the risk of heat-related illnesses and injuries among their employees. Being proactive can lead to fewer lost workdays and a healthier workforce. Enhanced Employee Morale and Productivity: Workers are likely to feel more valued and safer, which can boost morale and productivity. A safe working environment is critical to employee retention and job satisfaction. Legal and Financial Protection: Complying with OSHA standards helps protect businesses from potential lawsuits and financial penalties associated with workplace injuries and non-compliance.   Steps to Take Now Maryland small business owners should begin preparing for the potential implementation of these rules by: Conducting Heat Risk Assessments: Evaluate your workplace to identify areas and tasks that may pose heat risks to employees. Developing a Heat Illness Prevention Plan: Create and document a plan that includes measures for hydration, rest breaks, and temperature control. Training Employees: Start training your workforce on heat safety, including recognizing symptoms of heat-related illnesses and understanding emergency procedures. Monitoring OSHA Announcements: Stay informed about the proposed rule’s progress and any changes or updates from OSHA. At Luchansky Law, we understand small business owners’ challenges in navigating new regulations. If you have questions or need assistance preparing for these changes, our experienced team is here to help. Contact us today to ensure your business is ready to comply with the new heat protection standards and continue providing a safe working environment for your employees. For more information on the proposed rule and how it may affect your business, visit https://www.osha.gov/heat-exposure/rulemaking and the U.S. Department of Labor’s official announcement (DOL) (OSHA) (OSHA). 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 effectively meet legal and business needs. Please contact us at (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 Jul 9 No Comments
Employer's Toolbox

The Supreme Court Overturns Chevron: Benefits for Small Business Owners

The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine marks a pivotal shift in administrative law. It significantly impacts federal regulatory power and creates many new opportunities for small business owners. Background: Chevron Doctrine and the Case The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., has been a cornerstone of administrative law. It mandated that courts defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This doctrine gave agencies considerable leeway to create and enforce regulations, shaping policies across various sectors, including environmental protection, public health, workplace safety, and consumer protection. The recent ruling originated from Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases involved commercial fishermen who contested the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) requirement to pay for federal observers on their vessels. The fishermen argued that the Chevron doctrine allowed agencies to impose undue burdens without explicit congressional authorization. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided with the fishermen, dismantling the Chevron precedent. Impacts on Small Business Owners 1. Regulatory Uncertainty: The overturning of Chevron introduces significant regulatory uncertainty. Businesses may face a more unpredictable regulatory environment without the deference previously granted to agency interpretations. Small businesses, which often lack the resources of larger corporations to navigate complex legal landscapes, may find it particularly challenging to stay compliant with evolving regulations. 2. Increased Legal Challenges: Agencies will likely face more legal challenges to their regulations. Small businesses might need to engage more in litigation to contest or defend against regulatory interpretations, potentially increasing legal costs and diverting resources from core business activities. 3. Potential for Reduced Regulation: In the short term, the decision may reduce the scope of regulations, particularly those that were justified under ambiguous statutory language. This could benefit small businesses by reducing compliance burdens and operational costs associated with stringent regulations. 4. Greater Judicial Involvement: Courts will now play a more significant role in interpreting statutes, which may lead to less consistent regulatory enforcement as different courts may interpret laws in varying ways. Small businesses will need to monitor legal developments closely and may benefit from legal counsel to navigate these changes effectively. 5. Legislative Pressure: The decision shifts more responsibility to Congress to draft clearer, more detailed statutes. Small business owners and their advocates might need to engage more actively in legislative processes to ensure that new laws consider the practical realities of running a small business and do not impose undue burdens. 6. Impact on Specific Sectors: Certain industries, particularly those heavily regulated by federal agencies, may experience more pronounced impacts. For example, environmental regulations could become less predictable, affecting businesses in manufacturing, agriculture, and other sectors reliant on natural resources. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine represents a fundamental change in how federal regulations are developed and enforced. For small business owners, this shift brings both challenges and potential opportunities. Navigating this new legal landscape will require vigilance, adaptability, and, often, legal expertise. At Luchansky Law, we are committed to helping small businesses understand and respond to these changes, ensuring they can continue to thrive in an evolving regulatory environment. For more information on how this ruling may impact your business, please visit Luchansky Law. 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 effectively meet legal and business needs. Please contact us at (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 Jul 1 No Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

Tag Cloud

Tags
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