Jeffrey C. Seaman

Jeffrey C. Seaman

COUNSEL
jseaman@wtplaw.com
ROCKVILLE
T: 301.804.3619
F: 202.327.6176



Mr. Seaman has been a civil litigator for over twenty years.  His practice is focused primarily on community association-related litigation, including construction defect and warranty matters, intra-association disputes, and disputes among and between reciprocal easement holders in residential /commercial condominiums.  Mr. Seaman also has substantial experience handling employment litigation in state and federal courts (see “experience” section).  Although he most often defends businesses and individuals against lawsuits, Mr. Seaman has represented and prosecuted lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs in injury, government and business-related disputes. His broad experience before courts and juries has given him a valuable perspective as a trial attorney and counselor. Mr. Seaman has received a Martindale 5-star (out of 5) peer-review rating.

Memberships & Activities

  • District of Columbia Bar Association, Litigation and Employment sections
  • Maryland Bar Association, Litigation and Employment sections
  • Bar Association of Montgomery County, Maryland
  • American Bar Association, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice and Labor & Employment Law sections
  • Vice President, Board of Governors: Izaak Walton League of America, Bethesda / Chevy Chase Chapter

Community Associations

Mr. Seaman has experience representing associations in a wide variety of disputes in the District of Columbia and Maryland.
  • Represents condominium and homeowners' associations in negotiations and litigation over construction defects and financing deficits.
  • Defends condominium and homeowners' associations against a wide variety of claims by members and owners, including housing discrimination, negligence and fiduciary duty claims.
  • Represents associations in disputes with other entities.
  • Prosecutes claims on behalf of residential associations relating to the sharing and allocation of common expenses under reciprocal easements with commercial entities.


Employment Law

Mr. Seaman has garnered favorable results for clients in a variety of employment lawsuits. Below are some highlights.

  • Defended employer in federal gender and racial discrimination cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (judgment for employer).
  • Defended employer in an Age Discrimination in Employment Act and unfair labor practices matter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (judgment for employer).
  • Defended an employer and manager in federal wrongful termination and due process lawsuit (judgment for employer and manager).
  • Defended lawsuits under the D.C. Human Rights Act and the Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law.


Major Tort / Property Management

  • Defended property owners and managers in multiple wrongful death and serious injury lawsuits alleging inadequate security, in federal and state courts.
 

Civil Rights

  • Defended law enforcement officers against federal civil rights claims in federal and state courts, including a high-profile wrongful arrest claim in Maryland.
 

Property Rights

  • Defended a property owner against the government in a case involving the Purple Line right-of-way.   Link to the oral argument in that case before the Maryland Court of Appeals by clicking here.
 

Electronic Data

  • Mr. Seaman is a member of the firm’s Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") Committee.  He applies his and our ESI Committee’s understanding of the evolving technology of data collection, processing and management with his knowledge and experience as a litigator to help clients understand and navigate their legal obligations to maintain and handle their data, in and out of litigation.
PRESENTATIONS & PUBLICATIONS

Co-presenter, State Employment Law Trends, Montgomery County Office of Human Rights Employment Law Update, May 2017

Presentation, Montgomery County Office of Human Rights County, State & Federal Employment Law Update Information Breakfast, “Worker Classification and the Definition of ‘Wage,’” May 2016

Co-presenter, “Dealing with Difficult Employees,” February 2015

Co-presenter, “Who is and Who is Not an Employee Entitled to Overtime?” November 2014

Co-author, ‘The Intersection of Medical Marijuana and Disability Laws,” Maryland State Bar Labor and Employment Section Newsletter, Fall 2017

"Montgomery County's Criminal Background Law Enacted with Significant Changes," WTP Client Alert, November 2014

"Applicants' Criminal Histories May Soon Be Off Limits in Initial Interviews in Montgomery County and District of Columbia," WTP Newsletter, September 2014

ARTICLES

The Intersection of Medical Marijuana and Disability Laws in Maryland

In 2014, Governor O’Malley signed into law Senate Bill 923, which laid the foundation for the legal distribution of “medical marijuana” in Maryland. The statutory framework permits distribution of marijuana by licensed dispensaries for certain medical purposes as prescribed by “certifying providers” to “qualifying patients.”  Legislation enacted in the previous session had established the Natalie M. LaPrade Maryland Medical Marijuana Commission,1 whose purpose was to establish and oversee the “investigational” use of marijuana for medical purposes by academic medical centers. The 2014 law expanded the medical marijuana program beyond the investigational stage, and permitted the use of marijuana for the treatment of certain medical conditions.2  Consistent with that expansion, the 2014 law broadened the Commission’s duties to include the licensure of medical marijuana growers and dispensaries.


Hat Fight: NLRB Ruling Against Company Hat Policy Rejected by D.C. Circuit

In World Color Corp. v. NLRB (D.C. Circuit No. 14-1028), the Court addressed a petition by a graphic printing company for review of a decision by the NLRB that the company’s employee hat policy violated the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”).  The employer’s policy prohibited the wearing of baseball caps other than company caps bearing the company logo.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that the policy violated the Act because it prohibited employees from wearing union caps that bore union insignia (and thereby violated the employees’ rights under the Act). However, the policy also permitted employees to accessorize “in good taste and in accordance with all safety rules.”  The company argued that the NLRB erred in failing to consider the employees’ ability, under the “accessorizing” portion of the policy, to apply union insignia to their company caps, and that, because employees were permitted to accessorize with union insignia, the policy did not violate the Act. 

Montgomery County's Criminal Background Law Enacted With Significant Changes

The purpose of this note is to summarize the significant differences between the criminal background check bill introduced in the Montgomery County Council in July (“Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards”) and the version of that bill that was passed into law by the Council on October 28, 2014.   We also provide you with a comparison of the Montgomery County law to the District of Columbia’s corresponding criminal history law (“Fair Criminal Record Screening Amendment Act of 2014”). 


Fence fight: Montgomery judge to consider who owns trail land along Purple Line route

Jeff Seaman Represents Chevy Chase Homeowner in High Profile Purple Line Fence Dispute

..."Bhatt’s lawyer, Jeff Seaman, argued that previous owners of Bhatt’s home had taken “adverse possession” of the land along the trail’s shoulders because a fence has existed in the same spot since at least 1963, meaning the fenced off land hasn’t been publicly used since then.

Associate County Attorney Jim Savage argued that Maryland law doesn’t allow for people to take “adverse possession”of government-owned land. 


NLRB Memoranda Encourage Cooperation Between OSHA, WHD and NLRB In Advising Employees of Possible Claims

Recent memoranda issued by the General Counsel of the NLRB’s Operations Management Division make it clear that OSHA, Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, and the NLRB Regional Offices are going to be taking a more coordinated, less compartmentalized approach to addressing workplace complaints.  The memoranda also encourage personnel from those agencies to advise claimants about possible claims under other labor laws.


Confidentiality Claims Rejected by NLRB

A recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board provides guidance about what does and does not qualify as “confidential” information that an employer could withhold from an employee bargaining unit.  In Washington Hospital Center d/b/a Medstar Washington Hospital Center and National Nurses United (May 9, 2014), the Board addressed the Hospital’s refusal to produce to National Nurses United (“NNU”) two documents: (1) the results of a safety survey that the Hospital’s nurses had completed (“safety survey”) and (2) a staffing matrix that the Hospital had developed to inform its de


Employer Liability For Sexual Harassment By a Subordinate

The U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently dealt with a question that has rarely been addressed in sexual harassment/ hostile work environment cases:  under what circumstances is an employer liable for the sexual harassment of an employee by one of that employee’s subordinates? 


Scared Staff / Reassigned Manager

A recent federal court decision in a discrimination / retaliation case will be of interest to Maryland employers, HR managers, and people who mistreat their staff.


New Stormwater Management and Sediment Control Requirements for Montgomery County

On July 27, 2010, the Montgomery County Council passed a bill that revised the County's stormwater management and sediment control code. The stated purpose of the new ordinance is to bring local stormwater management practices - for development and redevelopment projects - into compliance with the Maryland Stormwater Management Act of 2007 ("the Act").1 The bill also incorporates the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual into the County Code. The ordinance is effective immediately.