Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Law digest – 8/29/11

MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

Evidence, Subsequent repairs: The trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of subsequent repairs because the danger of prejudice in admitting such evidence substantially outweighed any probative value of the evidence. Consolidated Waste Industries, Inc. v. Standard Equipment Co., No. 143, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-0815-22.

Healthcare Law, Medical malpractice: The plain language of the Healthcare Malpractice Claims Act requires dismissal without prejudice of the underlying claim for the filing of a non-compliant certificate of merit. Breslin v. Powell, No. 134, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-0816-22.

Labor & Employment, Whistleblower’s Act: The administrative law judge erred in concluding that fired police officer’s letter was not a protected disclosure under the Whistleblower’s Act because the ALJ improperly conflated officer’s personal motivation for the disclosure with the statutory requirement that an employee have a reasonable belief that the information disclosed evidences a violation of law. Lawson v. Bowie State University, No. 119, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-08-16-21.

Real Property, Curing of defects: The type of defects in the affidavits of consideration — missing or improper affidavits or acknowledgments — are cured by RP §4-109 unless a timely judicial challenge is mounted. Guttman v. Wells Fargo Bank, Misc. No. 20, Sept. Term, 2010. RecordFax No. 11-0816-20.

U.S. FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Labor & Employment, Sexual harassment: There existed a genuine issue of material fact as to whether assistant was subject to a hostile work environment, where assistant alleged that her supervisor repeatedly propositioned her to have sex with him, made sexual remarks and overtures to her, and ultimately fired her after she filed a sexual harassment complaint. Okoli v. City of Baltimore, No. 08-2198. RecordFax No. 11-0808-60.

Labor & Employment, Standing under the Fair Labor Standards Act: Plaintiff was not entitled to bring an action against a prospective employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act because an employment applicant is not an “employee,” and only employees can sue their current or former employers for retaliation under the statute. Dellinger v. Science Applications International Corporation, No. 10-1499. RecordFax No. 11-0812-60.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MARYLAND

Civil Procedure, Motion to compel discovery: Extra-record discovery is available to ERISA plaintiffs when a plan administrator has a structural conflict of interest and information not contained in the administrative record is necessary to enable the court to determine the likelihood that the conflict influenced the particular benefits decision. Clark v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Civil No. JKB-10-3107. RecordFax No. 11-0727-40.