Andrew P. Torrez

Email | 410.332.1245

P. Andrew Torrez, named one of Maryland's star lawyers by Benchmark, is the founding partner of The Law Offices of P. Andrew Torrez, LLC.‎


  • Marketing With Social Media: Is It Time to Retire the Concept of the "Workplace?"

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team

    For two centuries, intellectual property disputes between employees and employers were guided by a relatively simple principle:  if you did something “in the workplace” – and you didn’t specifically bargain with your employer to keep it – then what you did was “on the clock” and that work product belongs to your employer.

    If you’re a business professional or a lawyer reading this blog, chances are that notion seems awfully quaint right about now.  You know that smartphones are ubiquitous in our respective professions, and business gets done 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  That important client email gets answered at midnight on a Saturday from your basement – not at 9 am the next Monday from your office.

    Whether our brave new wireless world is a mixed blessing is probably beyond the scope of this blog.  But one of the things we have noted is that the increasing commingling of the “workplace” with “personal” space is blazing new trails in previously settled areas of the law.  We look at another recent development in this area in context after the jump.

  • When Suits By Suits Go Political, Part II: Jim Greer vs. the Republican Party of Florida

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team

    Stop us if you’ve heard this before, but we’re still not a political blog.

    Nevertheless, when the former Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, Jim Greer, sues the Republican Party, Florida State Senate President Mike Haridopolous and Florida State Sen. John Thrasher for unpaid severance pay and $5 million in damages following his 2010 resignation – and the Republican Party replies with allegations that Greer engaged in fraud and money laundering, funneling $300,000 from the Republican Party to his own pockets, well, we can’t resist.

    Twice, in fact.  Back in September we advised you that Greer was filing suit, and that his lawyer was confident of victory.  (“They’re [the Republican Party] dead. … Jim Greer will win the criminal case and Jim Greer will win the civil case.”)

    Two days ago, the Republican Party struck back, moving to dismiss the portion of the lawsuit that includes the individual defendants, Sens. Haridopolous and Thrasher.  But the Court rejected that argument, permitting Greer's lawsuit to go forward against both the Republican Party and the state senators, apparently on the theory that the individual legislators were acting as individuals and not on behalf of the Republican Party when they allegedly offered Greer $124,000 to resign back in 2010.

    (Greer calls the offer a “severance payment”; media sources have not been so generous in their characterization.)

    Although most of us don’t face the same sort of political issues that Jim Greer and the Republican Party of Florida do, many employers do face similar risks when they contemplate firing a prominent, high-level employee.  For those employers, the “nightmare scenario” is that the employee will run down his or her former employer in the press, or possibly air dirty laundry that the employer would rather not have out in the open. 

    If you’re thinking that Jim Greer used that exact same strategy, you would be right.  In his deposition – leaked to the press, of course – Greer called Republican Party officials “whack-a-do, right-wing crazies” not-so-secretly plotting to suppress minority votes in Florida.  (The full transcript of Greer’s deposition can be found here.)

    Often times, employers chafe at the idea of paying a high-level employee to go away; after all, they’ve already decided this person isn’t worth keeping.  How can they possibly be worth paying?  The practical reality is that sometimes the benefits of an amicable settlement – including a general release of all claims and non-disparagement and non-disclosure agreements – can leave the employer better off than simply rolling the dice.

    We’re betting that the Republican Party of Florida wishes it had just paid Greer back in 2010.

    Postscript:  A grand jury indicted Greer on multiple fraud counts in 2010 and his criminal trial is scheduled for February, 2013.

  • Suits by Suits Monthly Roundup - September 2012

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team and Jason M. Knott

    In September, Suits by Suits covered a wide array of disputes across many industries throughout many jurisdictions. Topics reported on include Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act  and Eaton Corporation’s quest to sue six of its engineers. We revisited the UVA failed coup, we discussed common lessons from the “If You Can’t Say Something Nice,” department, and even told a story about two cases with lessons about Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. We also discussed Merrill Lynch and mandatory employee arbitration clauses, how saving money saved an employer from age discrimination, and the statutes of limitations

    In case you missed anything the first time around, here’s a roundup of all our posts from September:

  • Mandatory Employee Arbitration Clauses: Still A Good Deal for the Employer? How Merrill Lynch is Making Employers Think Twice

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team

    On Sept. 17, 2012, a U.S. District Court denied Merrill Lynch’s petition to vacate an arbitration panel’s award of $10.2 million to two of its former advisors, Tamara Smolchek and Meri Ramazio.  The award – split almost evenly between $5.2 million in compensatory damages for deferred compensation and $5 million in punitive damages – helps to illustrate the growing (and changing) role that arbitration plays in disputes between high-level executives and their employers.

    For decades it has been conventional wisdom that employee arbitration clauses favor the employer by taking potentially sensitive cases away from a jury (because “everyone knows” that juries are “more sympathetic to employees”).  (Or, as a more employer-friendly article puts it, arbitration can reduce the likelihood of an “irrational award” because arbitrators “tend to be more conservative than juries.”)

    Additionally, arbitration clauses can favor the employer where the employee is required to share in some (or all) of the costs of the arbitration by discouraging plaintiffs who would otherwise have been able to secure plaintiffs’ counsel on a contingent fee basis for a trial by jury.  (Note that courts continue to grapple with this issue, and many courts have determined that if an arbitration clause would unduly burden a plaintiff from exercising his or her legal rights, that arbitration clause is invalid and the plaintiff is free to litigate in court instead.  See, e.g., Ball v. SFX Broadcasting, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d 320, 238-40 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (discussing cases).

    Is this still the case?  Read on.

  • The Inbox - Sept. 14, 2012

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team

    This week in suits by suits:

    • On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral argument in the case brought by Starbucks baristas alleging that the company violated the Massachusetts Tip Law by requiring the baristas to share their tips with shift supervisors .  We reported on this case earlier and will be on the lookout for the First Circuit’s decision.  The key question in the case – whether or not Starbucks shift supervisors have “managerial responsibility” – was argued to the court early on Tuesday.
    • The IRS awarded a record $104 million to former UBS employee and whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld, who had previously been convicted of tax fraud for advising UBS clients to avoid paying income taxes.  Birkenfeld's testimony disclosed how UBS was offshoring client assets to evade U.S. income tax; as a result, UBS agreed to pay $780 million in criminal fines and release data for nearly 5,000 accounts.
    • Author and playwright David Macaray has written a provocative article for the Huffington Post entitled "The Golden Parachute is Un-American" (and, he also argues, "curious," "bizarre," and "con jobs").
  • ‎9/12, Academic Freedom, and Ward Churchill: When Suits By Suits Go Political‎

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team

    This isn’t a political blog; although the lawyers here at Suits by Suits certainly have political opinions (and often strong ones at that!), we’re more of a roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-things-done bunch.  We want to help high-level employees and their employers be aware of the potential pitfalls that exist in the workplace and to rely on our experience as litigators when something does go wrong.

    But sometimes those pitfalls are red or blue; sometimes employers (Chick-Fil-A, anyone?), or high-profile employees get into trouble precisely because they’ve made their political opinions public. 

    Eleven years ago today – and one day after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon – then-University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill published an essay entitled “Some People Push Back:  On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.”  

    Through some strange circumstances (which we discuss below), that 9/12 essay sparked controversy nearly three and a half years later, after which, Prof. Churchill alleges, he was wrongfully terminated by the University of Colorado in retaliation for the opinions he expressed.  Although he won at trial, the jury verdict was set aside by the trial court judge on a motion for judgment as a matter of law; on Monday, that ruling was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court.  Professor Churchill has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.  If and when he does – and if the Supreme Court grants certiorari – we’ll continue to cover this case.

    Although Professor Churchill’s 9/12 article is unusual, we know that individuals – whether speaking for themselves or on behalf of their employer – are going to speak out on the issues that matter most to them, particularly in an election year, just as Professor Churchill did on the day after 9/11.  Is there anything we can learn from those 9/12ers?

  • The Inbox - August 17, 2012

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team

    This week in suits by suits:

    • Two former interns amended their class action lawsuit against Fox Entertainment, arguing that Fox's unpaid internship program violated minimum wage and overtime laws by effectively using unpaid interns to replace regular employees.  The lawsuit alleges that unpaid interns were used as "a crucial labor force on its productions," serving as production assistants, bookkeepers, secretaries, and janitors.
    • Deborah Sturgeon and ten other named plaintiffs filed a class action against AT&T, arguing that AT&T's lunch break policies for technicians -- which allegedly prohibit technicians eating in their vehicles from playing music, using the vehicle's heating or air conditioning, and from reading or otherwise using the balance of their lunch hour for personal activities -- effectively amount to requiring those employees to work through lunch without pay.
    • California Attorney General Kamala Harris filed a civil suit against Help Hospitalized Veterans (HHV), a charitable organization based in California that provides hospitalized veterans with therapeutic arts & crafts activities.  The Attorney General's lawsuit alleges that certain officers and directors of HHV breached their fiduciary duties by wasting charitable assets on excessive compensation and retirement payments to its officers, golf memberships, and a condominium, and also alleges improper accounting and self-dealing in connection with HHV's fundraising efforts.  The suit seeks the removal of the named officers and directors, restitution, civil penalties, and punitive damages.  In 2008, HHV's then-president, Roger Chapin, was required to testify before Congress regarding similar allegations.
    • In perhaps the strangest item on this list, U.S. District Court Judge J. Paul Oetken denied a terminated employee's motion for summary judgment on her breach of contract claims against her former employer, Watson Enterprises, Inc. (WEI), a Mercedes-Benz dealership in Greenwich, Connecticut, as well as dismissed the employer's counterclaims for unjust enrichment and civil theft.  Judge Oetken allowed both parties to proceed to trial on the central allegation -- whether the employee was "worthless" and hired solely because she was the mistress of one of WEI's former partners.  Salacious details (safe for work) from the record are excerpted by Courthouse News Service.
    • A federal jury in Washington D.C. awarded $3.5 million to a lifeguard who was sexually harassed by her supervisor at the Takoma Aquatic Center, a public swimming pool in Takoma Park, Maryland.
    • U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema required a plaintiff alleging discrimination in her termination by her employer, Navy Federal Credit Union, to pay nearly $34,000 in legal fees incurred as defense costs after Judge Brinkema advised the plaintiff at a pretrial conference that her lawsuit could not survive summary judgment.  The plaintiff proceeded anyway, and the Court ordered her to pay defense costs associated with defending the motion.
  • Religious Accommodation Under Title VII: Is It The Happiest Place On Earth If You Can’t Wear Your Hijab?

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team

    We continue our examination of the many things today's CEOs need to keep in mind -- things they may not have taught in business school.  Today, it's the sometimes hot-button issue of the role of religion in the workplace, this time with a look at a recently-filed lawsuit that’s drawn considerable public attention.  (See also here and here.)

    Now, most businesses have some sort of dress code, including Zuckerman Spaeder.  When a company’s employees routinely interact with customers and the public – say, a retail store or restaurant – many employers go beyond a simple dress code in an effort to establish a company-wide uniform “look.”  Perhaps no place on earth goes quite as far as Disneyland, where employees are considered “cast members” and – even when not dressed as a giant cartoon mouse – are asked to reflect certain “themes” throughout the park.

    So what happens when one of those “cast members,” a young Muslim woman working as a hostess at a Disney café, requests the right to wear a hijab, the traditional Muslim headscarf?

  • Claims That “Arise Out Of” An Employment Agreement: It May Be Broader (And More ‎Significant) Than You Think

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team

    Sexual discrimination claims continue to be big news in the world of suits by suits.  We’ve previously commented at some length regarding the novel issues raised in the sexual harassment lawsuit brought by former Kleiner Perkins partner Ellen Pao.

    Today, we turn to a related and equally unique issue:  a sexual orientation claim brought under the auspices of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.  Although there is no federal statute that protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation generally, Brian Anthony Martinez, the former international managing director of television for Bloomberg Media, brought a lawsuit against his former employer in 2011, alleging that he was terminated after Bloomberg discovered that he had undergone therapy for domestic abuse from his male partner, thus (arguably) bringing his claims under the ADA.

  • The Inbox

    | Zuckerman Spaeder Team

    This week in suits by suits and other related items of interest:

As the regulatory and business environments in which our clients operate grow increasingly complex, we identify and offer perspectives on significant legal developments affecting businesses, organizations, and individuals. Each post aims to address timely issues and trends by evaluating impactful decisions, sharing observations of key enforcement changes, or distilling best practices drawn from experience. InsightZS also features personal interest pieces about the impact of our legal work in our communities and about associate life at Zuckerman Spaeder.

Information provided on InsightZS should not be considered legal advice and expressed views are those of the authors alone. Readers should seek specific legal guidance before acting in any particular circumstance.