As artificial intelligence sweeps through industries and professions, its use in Maryland law as discussed in Mezu v. Mezu provides guidance.  Attorneys remain responsible for their legal advocacy, including through use of rhetoric, writing, computers, and more.  This article discusses Mezu v. Mezu, Slip Op. No. 361, 2025 Md. App. Lexis 898 (Oct. 29, 2025) and offers basic insights into AI.

 

At Mosson Law, LLC, the first meeting between an attorney and prospective client is a legal consultation.  These are being handled remotely for the most part and you can conduct a legal consultation by phone from your home.  They are conducted at a charge.

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies that employment discrimination claims can proceed at court where "harm" is alleged to have occurred based on a protected status, with "harm" being tangible, but not always significant or economic.  Slip Op No. 22-193 (2024).

I am please to announce that I have been named a SUPER LAWYER in Plaintiff's employment law in Maryland by Super Lawyers Magazine for 2026! 

 

Mosson Law won a 2026 "Best" award for Employment Law among Towson, Maryland, law firms, from Quality Business Awards

In Johnson v. Baltimore City et. al., the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals revived a dismissed lawsuit and affirmed a lenient pleading standard in Maryland federal courts for pleading a racial discrimination case based upon the theory of disparate treatment.  Slip Op. 25-1124 (4th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026). The Fourth Circuit examined comparisons taken "together," and found them sufficient to state a disparate treatment claim, sufficient to proceed initially.

The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed a single standard for racial discrimination employment claims, under Title VII of The 1964 Civil Rights Act, in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Slip Op. 23-1039, 605 U.S. ___ (June 5, 2025).  This includes racial discrimination alleged by the "majority culture," or sometimes framed as "reverse race discrimination claims," because employers are alleged to fire caucasians due to their causasian and/or white race.

 

Attorney-client privilege enables people to obtain confidential legal help without fear that the conversation becomes disclosed at Court, the government, or other side.  This article introduces the concept and covers some of its scope.

In Maryland, if you have a reasonable expectation of a lawsuit, you have a duty to preserve evidence.

In Maryland, defamation cannot involve statements in court papers or in court testimony due to Maryland's absolute Litigation Privilege.  This article provides more detail.

Mosson Law, LLC, wishes you a happy and warm holiday season and a thoughtful, fruitful New Year.

The Fourth Circuit in Barbour v. Garland has clarified the initial pleading standard in a manner helpful to job applicants and dedicated professionals in reinstating a retaliation lawsuit against the DEA.  Slip Op No. 22-1815 (4th Cir., June 24, 2024). 

In Bills v. WVNH EMP, LLC, et. al., a certified nurse assistant caring for a disabled male patient, who made advances on her, was not protected by federal sexual harassment law when slapping his hand away on three different admitted occasions.  She was fired for slapping the patient and this was held lawful.

Maryland has banned non-compete agreements for licensed health care professionals caring for patients who make $350,000 annually or less, starting on July 1, 2025.  Licensed veterinarian professionals are covered too.

In the recent case of Shigley v. Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP, the Maryland federal court provided guidance on asserting a religious accommodation claim in the workplace.

In a recent federal court decision, the U.S. District Court for Maryland approved a retaliation claim to move forward into discovery, and illustrates what is required in Abdus-Shahid v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore.

The recent resignation of Harvard President Claudine Gay is a teachable moment for evidentiary analysis based on examples of alleged plagiarism available in the media.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has declared placing non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements, or requiring agreements to be confidential, are illegal restraints on employee speech under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, where the Act applies, in McLaren Macomb.

In Groff v. DeJoy, the U.S. Supreme Court has expanded reasonable religious accommodation rights, which is analyzed workplace by workplace, and must be granted unless it causes a substantial "undue burden" on the employer.