Attorney Richard Neuworth Selected for Prominent “Leadership in Law” Recognition

Lebau & Neuworth partner attorney Richard Neuworth has been named to the prestigious “2018 Leadership in Law” roll, which distinguishes select regional attorneys who are “outstanding leaders in the law.” Inclusion in the exclusive recognition is based on a nominee’s outstanding career accomplishments, community involvement and mentoring activities.

For 18 years now, The Daily Record has recognized members of the statewide legal community for their outstanding work through the Leadership in Law awards. Richard, as are other honorees, was selected as a “Leader in Law” by a panel of legal and business leaders.

“Our Leadership in Law honorees are committed to excellence. They work tirelessly to uphold high legal standards in Maryland and devote much time serving as mentors to the next generation of legal professionals,” Daily Record publisher Suzanne Fischer-Huettner said in announcing the select names of awardees.

Leadership in Law recognizes Maryland’s legal professionals – lawyers and judges – whose dedication to their occupation and to their communities is outstanding.

Richard, who has been handling personal injury and employment and employee benefit litigation for 35 years, is a member of the American Bar Association – Labor and Employment Section; Maryland State Bar Association Labor and Employment Section – Section Council since 2006; Maryland State Bar Association – Elder Law Council in 2010; Maryland Association of Justice; Baltimore City Bar Association; and National Employment Lawyers Association.

He has been the editor in chief of the “Trial Reporter” of the Maryland Association for Justice since 2006. He has also presented on the subject of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and Americans for Disabilities Act of 1990 to the Maryland State Bar Association Convention; moderated a program on the new Maryland False Claims Act and federal False Claims Act; and presented on both the Maryland False Claims Act and federal False Claims Act for Employment Law Institute.

Richard has lectured on disability benefits and employment issues to diverse groups, including the National MS Society, Alzheimer’s Association, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and Lupus Foundation. He has also lectured on the subject of Social Security disability and Maryland Workers Compensation law to those groups, the National Business Institute and the Maryland State Bar Association.

He has been an adjunct lecturer on both employment law and Social Security disability as part of the Elder Law course at the University of Maryland Law School since 2005.

Contact Lebau & Neuworth at (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us.

Employment Discrimination and Retaliation Claims: A Reminder

We have blogged in the past on the importance of always considering pursuing a retaliation claim with claims for employment discrimination. In addition, when being subjected to employment discrimination, one should also seriously consider complaining about the discrimination in order to obtain the protection of laws prohibiting retaliation. The Maryland federal court recently decided a case that is illustrative of the importance of seeking the protection of retaliation laws. In Taylor v. Rite-Aid Corporation, the plaintiff asserted numerous claims against her employer including wrongful discharge under Maryland law, gender discrimination under Title VII, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and retaliation under Title VII and the Family Medical Leave Act. The claimant lost on summary judgment claims except for the retaliation claims and the court allowed to her to proceed to trial. The court reasoned as follows:

Here, although Taylor had been experiencing performance problems related to associate counseling for at least six months before she was terminated, her last performance review in early August indicated "immense[]" improvement in that area.   She was terminated less than three weeks after she complained to McDaniel and Lazor about Williams, and within a matter of weeks after she took her first FMLA leave under Williams.…This evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer that she would not have been terminated if she had not complained about Williams, or taken FMLA leave, even if she had recent performance problems. See Pinkett v. Apex Commc'ns Corp., 1:08CV790 (JCC), 2009 WL 1097531, at *6 (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2009) ("[A]n intervening period of only six weeks can, by itself, show a causal link[.)"); Price, 380 F.3d at 213.  Williams [sic,Taylor] has established a causal connection between her termination and her protected activity.

This case presents a stark reminder of the importance of retaliation claims and developing the necessary proof to prevail in court.    

The Importance Of Retaliation Claims – A Reminder

We have blogged in the past on the importance of always considering pursuing a retaliation claim with claims for employment discrimination. In addition, when being subjected to employment discrimination, one should also seriously consider complaining about the discrimination in order to obtain the protection of laws prohibiting retaliation. The Maryland federal court recently decided a case that is illustrative of the importance of seeking the protection of retaliation laws. In Taylor v. Rite-Aid Corporation, the plaintiff asserted numerous claims against her employer including wrongful discharge under Maryland law, gender discrimination under Title VII, disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and retaliation under Title VII and the Family Medical Leave Act. The claimant lost on summary judgment claims except for the retaliation claims and the court allowed to her to proceed to trial. The court reasoned as follows:

Here, although Taylor had been experiencing performance problems related to associate counseling for at least six months before she was terminated, her last performance review in early August indicated "immense[]" improvement in that area.   She was terminated less than three weeks after she complained to McDaniel and Lazor about Williams, and within a matter of weeks after she took her first FMLA leave under Williams.…This evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer that she would not have been terminated if she had not complained about Williams, or taken FMLA leave, even if she had recent performance problems. See Pinkett v. Apex Commc'ns Corp., 1:08CV790 (JCC), 2009 WL 1097531, at *6 (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2009) ("[A]n intervening period of only six weeks can, by itself, show a causal link[.)"); Price, 380 F.3d at 213.  Williams [sic,Taylor] has established a causal connection between her termination and her protected activity.

This case presents a stark reminder of the importance of retaliation claims and developing the necessary proof to prevail in court.