5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 440, Washington, D.C. 20015 Tel: 202-895-1506   Fax: 202-318-0798 E-Mail: lgoldsmith@goldsmithfirm.com On December 14, 2006, the Maryland Court of Appeals, which is Maryland's supreme court, agreed to hear the case of Friolo v. Frankel, for the second time. Friolo II will address the question of whether Joy Friolo- who won a jury trial at which she challenged her employer's failure to pay her wages-- is entitled to attorneys' fees for her counsel's success in winning Friolo I before the Court of Appeals. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH IS HONORED AS "LAWYER OF THE YEAR" BY THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION On February 23, 2005, the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association honored Leizer Z. Goldsmith as the 2005 Lawyer of the Year. MWELA President Linda Correia presented the award to Goldsmith at the organization's annual luncheon. Correia cited several of the Goldsmith Law Firm's recent litigation successes, and noted that several have been accomplished on behalf of indigent or low income clients who might not have been able to obtain representation without The Goldsmith Law Firm or a similar firm. Correia generously referred to Goldsmith as "the king of summary judgment," in recognition of his many successes in preventing employers from having their employees' and former employees' suits thrown out of court without trial. In accepting the award, Goldsmith attributed much of his success to his practice of taking on cases for low and modest wage earners . After thanking his family, his clients and the many colleagues who have assisted him along the way, Goldsmith added that: "We are fortunate, indeed blessed, to live in a political/economic system that, for all its many faults-and there are many-still permits us to sometimes take on Wal-Mart or even the United States Government when it mistreats a single employee, no matter how low on the organizational chart. These types of victories may not each make profound social change, but I believe they do make this a better country, bit by bit." LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH IS CHOSEN BY PEERS AS ONE OF WASHINGTON'S TOP EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS Leizer Z. Goldsmith is one of the "top employment lawyers" in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, as reported in the December 2004 Washingtonian Magazine. Washingtonian states that it "contacted hundreds of attorneys in each of the specialties and asked which lawyer in their field-other than themselves-they would trust with their business. Lawyers with the most recommendations made the list." LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH OBTAINS VERDICT OF $202,556.00 IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT, RETALIATION AND UNPAID WAGES CASE See Achievements for more details. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED, SO TRIAL MAY PROCEED AT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN GREENBELT, MARYLAND, IN A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE See Achievements for more details. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH SUCCESSFULLY PROTECTS JURY VERDICT FOR THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES, BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS See Achievements for more details. RECENT SETTLEMENTS Among other matters, The Goldsmith Law Firm has recently settled two multi-plaintiff employment cases against major corporations. Terms of the settlements are confidential. ATTORNEYS' FEE AWARD IN FRIOLO CASE IS INCREASED BY TRIAL JUDGE In the case of Friolo v. Frankel, Judge Beard has now ruled that Plaintiffs should be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $65,348.00, and costs in excess of $1,700.00. Defendant's use of "double jeopardy"-adding termination to a previously-imposed leave restriction; Defendant's admission that its reaction to the letter seeking accommodation was that the plaintiff would be "litigious;" Defendant's failure to put its now-alleged reason in the contemporaneous termination letter given to the Plaintiff; Defendant's failure to warn Plaintiff that noncompliance with a request for medical documentation might lead to termination; Admission of defendant's labor relations specialist that Plaintiff's failure to timely provide medical documentation would not normally lead to termination; Contradictions regarding who participated in the decision to terminate-the Court found that there appeared to be a false attempt to make the decision look like a consensus. The Court also rejected Defendant's attempt to construe attendance-related deficiencies cited by one decision maker as the same thing as performance cited by another; found that timing alone may rebut the employer's stated reason in a retaliation context; and stated that Defendant's assertion of conflicting reasons for the termination, even had there been no other pretext, can be sufficient to compel a trial. Trial should occur in mid-2003. MARYLAND'S HIGHEST COURT REQUIRES CALCULATION OF ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR WINNING PLAINTIFFS IN ALL MARYLAND FEE-SHIFTING CASES Plaintiff Joy Friolo brought claims against Defendants Dr. Douglas Frankel and the Maryland/Virginia Med Trauma Group for unpaid bonuses and overtime. It was tried over two days, June 25-26, 2001, before the Honorable Judge DeLawrence Beard. The jury awarded Ms. Friolo $11,778.85.00 for unpaid bonuses/breach of contract, and unpaid overtime, finding the Defendants both liable on all questions of liability presented to them. After an unsuccessful Motion for New Trial by the Defendants, the parties litigated the attorneys' fees to be paid by the Defendant. Ignoring our fee petition seeking lodestar fees-the reasonable hourly rate times the number of hours reasonably expended on the representation, Judge Beard awarded forty percent of the verdict, which came to approximately $4,700.00, or approximately $17.00 per hour. After we appealed the fee ruling to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the Court of Appeals granted sua sponte certiorari-meaning, it took the case without being asked. The question presented to the Maryland Court of Appeals was whether the Circuit Court judge erred in failing to apply the "lodestar" to an attorneys' fees petition under the Maryland Wage Payment and Overtime laws, and instead awarding forty percent of the judgment. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ms. Friolo, stating that the purpose of the attorneys' fees provisions in the statutes is to enable individuals whose rights under the statutes have been violated to obtain counsel, even when their claims may be for small sums of money. In this regard, the Court recognized that the fee award may properly be higher than the damages amount in certain circumstances, and referred generally to the existence of federal precedent on that point. The employer attempted to convince the Court to treat the (wage payment) case differently from a civil rights case, but the Court declined to adopt any such distinction. The Court also rejected the notion that the statutes' "permissive" language (that fees may be awarded) could in any way undermine the fact that the purpose is remedial and that the usual result when the Plaintiff wins should be an award of fees. The Court also eschewed the employer's advice that it not bar fees for any particular services because they related to claims which were "unsuccessful." The case has now been returned to the trial judge for a recalculation of the attorneys' fee award. IN ARGUMENT BEFORE MARYLAND'S SUPREME COURT, LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH ARGUES FOR FAIR COMPENSATION FOR PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES IN STATE-LAW WAGE CASES This case involves Plaintiff Joy Friolo's ("Ms. Friolo") claims against Defendants Dr. Douglas Frankel ("Dr. Frankel") and the Maryland/Virginia Med Trauma Group (collectively, "Defendants"), for unpaid bonuses and overtime. It was tried over two days, June 25-26, 2001, before the Honorable Judge DeLawrence Beard. The jury awarded Ms. Friolo $11,778.85.00 for unpaid bonuses/breach of contract, and unpaid overtime, finding the Defendants both liable on all questions of liability presented to them. On January 2, 2003, Leizer Z. Goldsmith participated in oral argument before the Maryland Court of Appeals-the state's supreme court, in the case of Friolo v. Frankel. This case involves claims against Defendants Dr. Douglas Frankel and the Maryland/Virginia Med Trauma Group, for unpaid bonuses and overtime. The Plaintiff, Ms. Friolo was employed as a medical biller. She alleged that Defendants breached their contract with her, and violated the Maryland Wage Payment and overtime laws. She contended that in accordance with her agreement with Defendants, she was entitled to receive five percent (5%) of all medical insurance reimbursements and collections received each month, and that she was denied statutorily required overtime (for which she had kept records). After an unsuccessful Motion for New Trial by the Defendants, the parties litigated the attorneys' fees to be paid by the Defendant. Ignoring our fee petition seeking lodestar fees-the reasonable hourly rate times the number of hours reasonably expended on the representation, Judge Beard awarded forty percent of the verdict, which came to approximately $4,700.00, or approximately $17.00 per hour. After we appealed the fee ruling to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the Court of Appeals granted sua sponte certiorari-meaning, it took the case without being asked. The question presented to the Maryland Court of Appeals was whether the Circuit Court judge erred in failing to apply the "lodestar" to an attorneys' fees petition under the Maryland Wage Payment and Overtime laws, and instead awarding forty percent of the judgment. After briefing, oral argument was held. At oral argument, the judges questioned actively throughout the hour both with regard to the facts of the particular case, and the larger principles at issue. On the positive side: no judge nor counsel ever proposed any systematic alternative method of calculation. Also, the doctor has no good answer for the fact that many times the hours actually compensated by the Circuit Court were obviously necessary to the representation. However, at least one judge seemed to have difficulty with the fact that the statutes seem to make fees "permissive" by stating that the court "may" award reasonable fees. Confronted with the fact that other statutes with similar language have been interpreted as mandatory or virtually mandatory, Judge Cathell insisted that, in his view, "may means may." Judge Wilner, who wrote the opinion in Admiral Mortgage v. Cooper, the favorable precedent that appeared to set the stage for a ruling that the lodestar must be applied, questioned Leizer harder than anticipated, but in a manner that was not necessarily hostile. Ultimately the Court of Appeals will have to choose between two disparate approaches to the reasonable fees permitted by the statutes: either the Court will have to countenance fees that are sometimes significantly higher than the damages won in wage cases, which are almost always low damage cases, or, alternatively, bless some alternative approach to fees that will almost certainly be so inadequate as to remove any incentive for attorneys to help enforce these statutes. Despite the energetic and tough questioning, Leizer feels pretty good about our chances. Hopefully, a decision may be issued during 2003. Leizer thanks the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association and many of its members, the Public Justice Center, the Employment Justice Center, CASA of Maryland and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement for their participation in the case on our side as friends of the Court. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH ACHIEVES VICTORY ON PROCEDURAL ISSUE AT THE MARYLAND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS, IN DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CASE, On December 2, 2002, Leizer Z. Goldsmith argued before a three-judge panel of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in a case involving interpretation of the Maryland and Prince George's County antidiscrimination laws. The case arose when the Plaintiff-who worked for the Defendant in Prince George's County -- was denied reasonable accommodation for her physical disabilities, and was subsequently terminated. When suit was filed, the Defendant sought a transfer of the case from Prince George's County Circuit Court to Montgomery County Circuit Court, arguing that because the Defendant made its firing decision in Montgomery County, that was the only county whose court could hear the case. Although the Defendant prevailed on that Motion, the Plaintiff-represented by Leizer Z. Goldsmith-- appealed the decision. Plaintiff prevailed before the Court of Special Appeals, and the case was sent back to Prince George's County Circuit Court. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH SERVES AS FEATURED SPEAKER ON LAW PRACTICE MANAGEMENT ISSUES Leizer Z. Goldsmith was a featured panelist at the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Annual Conference, on March 20, 2003. The topic was law practice management. Mr. Goldsmith discussed various subjects including legal marketing and the application of information technologies in small law offices. THE GOLDSMITH LAW FIRM CELEBRATES TENTH ANNIVERSARY In August 2002, The Goldsmith Law Firm celebrated its tenth anniversary. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH MODERATES PANEL ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT On January 17, 2002, Leizer Z. Goldsmith served as moderator at the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association's program on: "How to Beat Summary Judgment in the Post-Reeves Era." LAW CALL PROGRAM EXPIRES At the end of 2000, WMAL's Law Call expired, ending Leizer Z. Goldsmith's run as a featured participant in the program. The call-in show had provided a unique opportunity for debate of employment-related issues of interest to the community, and was also an enjoyable experience. One major highlight was the appearance of lawsuit winner Clarence E. Walker, Jr., on the program in November 2000, when Mr. Walker described his experiences opposing discrimination and ultimately prevailing. Mr. Goldsmith thanks everyone involved in creating the program, and most importantly, the audience who supported it during its run. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH ADDRESSES FEDERAL EEO OFFICIALS On December 6, 2000, Leizer Z. Goldsmith addressed United States Department of the Interior EEO officials regarding the employee's perspective on the EEO process, in Washington, D.C. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH SPEAKS ON WALKER CASE VICTORY On December 5, 2000, Leizer Z. Goldsmith discussed his recent $150,000.00 jury verdict in United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of Walker v. West, in a brown bag lunch hosted by the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH REPRESENTS PLAINTIFF IN MAJOR JURY VERDICT On October 30, 2000, a District of Columbia jury returned a verdict of $150,000.00 for compensatory damages, in favor of Clarence E. Walker, Jr., a housekeeper at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Washington Medical Center. The jury agreed with the argument presented by Leizer Z. Goldsmith on behalf of Mr. Walker, that the Agency denied Mr. Walker a promotion on account of his having made an earlier complaint of disability discrimination against his supervisor. The verdict has subsequently become a final judgment. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH SPEAKS TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION On May 9, 2000 Leizer Z. Goldsmith and his colleagues from the 1999 trial in the District of Columbia Superior Court in the case of Merriex v. Beale, presented a discussion of the trial tactics and strategies employed in that case, to the Employment Law Section of the Montgomery County, Maryland Bar Association. LEIZER Z. GOLDSMITH IS FEATURED SPEAKER AT NELA FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RIGHTS FORUM Leizer Z. Goldsmith's panel discussion on "Creating a Successful Practice Representing Federal Employees, "at the National Employment Lawyers Association's program on "Litigating & Winning Federal Employee Rights Cases" on March 18, 2000 at the Chicago Allegro Hotel in Chicago, Illinois, was very successful. Approximately sixty federal sector employment attorneys participated in a dialogue regarding issues in representing federal employees in Merit Systems Protection Board and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proceedings, as well as in Court. FEDERAL EMPLOYEE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION/RETALIATION CASE SETTLED In February 2000, the Goldsmith Law Firm successfully settled the case of Shipman v. Babbitt, a disability discrimination and retaliation case brought against the United States Department of the Interior. Shipman, a Park Service employee, obtained a promotion and significant financial compensation, as a result of the Agency's failure to promote him in the early 1990's.