PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND v. STEVEN MORALES
Court of Special Appeals, Salmon, Nov. 30, 2016,
Employer Liability- An off-duty police officer working security in a semi-uniformed capacity was still “within the scope of his employment” even where he was hired and paid solely by a fraternity and working while on light-duty was against departmental policy
Tag Archives: Employment Law
Baltimore County v. FOP 4
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, BALTIMORE COUNTY LODGE NO. 4
Court of Appeals, McDonald, August 25, 2016,
Public Policy – Arbitration – An arbitration decision might be void for public policy where it imposes a contract on the county prospectively that the county has not funded, but not where it merely interprets a contract that the county has already agreed to and has funds available to pay.
Continue reading
Brickey v. Hall
RANDALL E. BRICKEY v. ROBB HALL
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Diaz, July 8, 2016,
Qualified Immunity – Chief of Police should have received qualified immunity regarding termination of officer that wrongly claimed misuse of departmental funds during campaign for public office
McFeeley v. Jackson Street Entertainment
LAURA MCFEELEY, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly situated, a/k/a Dynasty; DANIELLE EVERETT, a/k/a Jasmine; CRYSTAL NELSON; DANNIELLE ARLEAN MCKAY; JENNY GARCIA; PATRICE HOWELL,
and EBONY WASHINGTON; FERRIS PACE; SHANIEKA DANIELS; SCHARLENE ALUGBUO; NICOLE PRECIOUS GRAY; TARSHEA JACKSON; CLEMENTINA IBE, as personal representative of the Estate of Scharlene Alugbuo,
v.
JACKSON STREET ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, d/b/a Fuego Exotic Dance Club, d/b/a Club Extasy Exotic Dance Club; RISQUE, LLC, d/b/a Fuego Exotic Dance Club; QUANTUM ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Fuego Exotic Dance Club; NICO ENTEPRISES, INC., d/b/a Fuego Exotic Dance Club; XTC ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Fuego Exotic Dance Club; UWA OFFIAH
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Wilkinson, June 8, 2016,
Labor – Employment Law – Exotic dancers, under the facts of this case, are to be classified as employees and not independent contractors
Continue reading