 This article was written by Thomas Bundy and Andrew D. Herman and first appeared in Maryland Matters.
Shortly after his inauguration, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) visited a research institute addressing artificial intelligence, machine learning, and virtual and augmented reality. He touted the project as “a perfect example of how Maryland can become more economically competitive by creating opportunities through innovative partnerships.” As the state embraces the promise of AI, however, it must also address the risks presented by the technology.  We are honored to announce that Maia Cogen has once again been selected for inclusion in National Black Lawyers (NBL) Top 100 for Georgia. She joins Allegra Lawrence-Hardy and Lovita Tandy who are also recognized in NBL as some of the nation’s most accomplished Black lawyers.
 Lawrence & Bundy is pleased to congratulate six of its attorneys recognized this week by Best Lawyers in America® 2024. Allegra J. Lawrence-Hardy, Thomas R. Bundy III, Andrew D. Herman, Lisa Haldar, Leslie J. Bryan, and Maia Cogen received the distinction after undergoing the extensive peer-review process.
“As a boutique litigation firm, it is particularly rewarding to have the talent of our attorneys recognized by Best Lawyers® every year since the firm’s inception,” said Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, co-founder of the firm. “We are humbled by the honor and very grateful to our colleagues for their recognition of the exceptional quality and commitment to excellence of our attorneys.” The firm’s attorneys were recognized in the areas of Commercial Litigation, Employment Law – Management and Litigation, Litigation – Labor and Employment, White Collar, and Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions. The Best Lawyers® distinction comes on the heels of the firm’s repeated inclusion in Chambers USA®, which is a ranking of the leading law firms and lawyers in the country based on client feedback.  The content of this article was originally published in Law360.
2022 marked the end of forced arbitration of sexual harassment claims: Where are we a year later? Last year, President Joe Biden signed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault Act, effective March 3, 2022.  This morning, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, finding in favor of the owner of a website design business who sued the state of Colorado because she feared Colorado’s public accommodation law would force her to convey website messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman. The Court held that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protected and excepted the owner from complying with Colorado’s law, reasoning Colorado could not require a website designer to create expressive designs that “defy her conscience” or “speak[] messages with which [she] disagrees.” With concern for the implications of the majority’s holding, the dissent wrote: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”
 Yesterday, in Groff v. DeJoy, a unanimous Supreme Court jettisoned the standard that courts and employers have relied on for decades to determine the existence of an “undue hardship” as a basis to reject religious accommodation requests. After Groff, an employer can reject a religious accommodation request as an undue burden only if granting the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs” for the employer.
 On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court issued a significant ruling on personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.—specifically, corporations that are authorized to conduct business in Pennsylvania. For those corporations, the simple act of registering with the Pennsylvania Department of State means the corporation has consented to being sued in Pennsylvania—by anyone and for conduct that happened anywhere.
 Today, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, deciding two companion cases challenging race-based admissions practices at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina. As many predicted, the Court held that using race as a factor in public college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, when carried out by institutions receiving federal funding, violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 During his campaign for Governor of Maryland, Wes Moore’s platform emphasized raising the minimum wage, addressing other employment-related policies, and pledging to foster economic innovation in the state. Since taking office in January, Governor Moore has moved quickly to implement aspects of his platform, signing several new bills into law. Some of these laws significantly affect companies and their employees in the state, while others, and a new executive order, aim to attract new industries to Maryland. On the economic development front, it remains to be seen whether the Governor’s action will bolster Maryland’s business climate and if such changes will come at the expense of other states.
 National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo has issued a memorandum describing her stance that the proffer, maintenance, or enforcement of most non-competes violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The General Counsel is responsible for prosecuting cases under the NLRA. Thus, while her recent memorandum does not have the force of law, it signals her intention to prosecute more non-compete cases with the hopes of generating new law. |
We contribute to the legal field by sharing our experience and insights in the form of articles and presentations designed to improve your way of doing business. You may search by category below, or contact us if you are interested in a field of study not listed here. Categories
All
|
