Latest news with #HouseEconomicMattersCommittee
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Plan to cap sexual abuse survivors' payout called ‘insulting,' unconstitutional
Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles) said his 2023 bill meant to help victims of sexual abuse get justice could potentially bankrupt the state. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters) Attorneys representing hundreds of people with allegations of sexual abuse while in state custody said a late-session attempt to limit financial damages is insulting and likely unconstitutional. The state faces what could be billions in potential financial settlements under the 2023 Child Victims Act, which made it easier for child sex abuse victims file claims against public and private institutions. The House Judiciary Committee, which passed that law, is now being asked to consider changes in an effort to limit liabilities some believe could bankrupt state government. 'We're in a very different situation, and as stewards, fiduciaries of taxpayers money, you really have to think things through on this,' said Del. N. Scott Phillips (D-Baltimore County), a member of thec ommittee. 'I voted wholeheartedly for CVA, and I believe in it. At the same time, I've got to say this is impacting the state of Maryland … in a really challenging way.' The committee held a hearing Wednesday on House Bill 1378 by Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles), the sponsor of the 2023 law. He said HB1378 is an attempt to hold the state 'accountable for all the atrocities committed within the facilities, while recognizing the financial constraints that come with governance.' 'We're not a private corporation. We do not have endless reserves, nor can we shift the cost to the shareholders,' Wilson said of the potential impact of the 2023 law. 'You must maintain a responsible budget, while safeguarding the central services that millions of people depend upon, including education, public safety and health care.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE The passage of the 2023 law was personal for Wilson, who himself is a survivor of physical and sexual abuse as a child. He said the law, which he worked more than a decade to pass, was not about the money. 'I just wanted people to have an opportunity to come and tell their story,' Wilson said. 'That's what they begged for — giving survivors a voice, allowing them to acknowledge their pain, and making sure they know that Maryland hurt them, however, but what's definitely changed is our understanding of the fiscal realities.' The bill proposed this session by Wilson, chair of the House Economic Matters Committee, would reduce the maximum payout that each plaintiff could receive. It also would require each case to go through a mandatory arbitration process before seeking a civil jury trial. Amendments provided to the committee ahead of Wednesday's hearing establish a mandatory arbitration process that plaintiffs would participate in before they could seek a jury trial. Payouts made through the arbitration process would be public, though victims could request their identities be withheld. The new draft of the bill substantially reduces potential claims. First, it removes a plaintiff's ability to seek damages for each instance of abuse. Instead, awards would be based on the individual claimant, regardless of the number of times they alleged abuse. The maximum award would remain at the current $890,000 for those who sue before Oct. 1, 2025, but drop to a $400,000 award for those who file after then. The changes would not lower liability caps for private institutions. Wilson said he had assurances from Attorney General Anthony Brown that the proposed changes would pass constitutional muster. Neither Brown, who was on a list of witnesses for the hearing, nor anyone from his office appeared Wednesday. With 12 days remaining in the 2025 legislative session, Wilson's efforts are also in a race against the clock. Lawmakers, concerned about the potential of billions in damages, are motivated to move quickly. But the bill must clear the Judiciary Committee and full House before heading to the Senate to begin the process again. Opponents of the bill said the ever-changing proposal should be tabled for the session to allow a more thoughtful review. 'This is very 'ready, shoot, aim' legislation,' said Tom Yost, founder of Baltimore-based Yost Legal Group. 'The bill was one thing on Saturday, a different thing on Sunday, a different thing on Wednesday.' Wilson became emotional as he faced questions from Del. Robin L. Grammer Jr. (R-Baltimore County) about the fairness of reining in liability for the state but not for private institutions. Wilson said state victims are 'people who are trapped, not only being detained but being raped. When you compare that to a situation where they're in a church, it's a little bit different. It seems to me that the state seems to be the biggest offender here.' He said that if Grammer wants to 'punish and bankrupt the state, God bless you. You can do that, if that's your goal, but it's not mine.' 'It's what you want to do to the taxpayer, I've told you what I want to do. I don't have to explain any more than this,' he continued. 'I'm sorry to be this way. I'm not going to sit here and go back with you. If you don't like this and you want to go to the taxpayer, you screw them, because I'm not.' When Grammer said he worried victims were getting lost in the debate, Wilson shot back, 'Holy sh-t…. Who are you talking to? No, no, no, no.' 'Do you really think for a minute that I don't know? Do you think I don't know what the victims go through and do you think there's any amount of money that's going to make it better?' he said. 'You can lie to yourself, but it's not.' House Judiciary Chair Luke Clippinger (D-Baltimore), attempted to tone down the exchange and called on another member of the committee to ask questions. Wilson later apologized for the heated exchange. Wilson's proposal also faced criticism from attorneys representing clients with potential cases against the state. Andrew Freeman, a partner at Brown, Goldstein & Levy told the committee the current law is 'inadequate' to compensate survivors of institutional abuse. Reducing the amount to $400,000 per claimant 'is more than inadequate consulting. It also is retroactive to the extent that we're taking away the expectations that people have built.' The change is also likely unconstitutional, he said, adding that it 'would still be unconstitutional, no matter what it costs taxpayers.' Freemen downplayed the potential for bankrupting the state. But he said taxpayers were responsible for the system that locked victims up and failed to protect them. That, he said, makes taxpayers 'responsible for some sort of fair compensation to them. Is that going to cost money? Yes. Is that going to bankrupt the state? No.' Ben Crump, a national civil rights and personal injury attorney, said he and other attorneys want to work with Wilson to help 'these victims right these historical wrongs.' 'While this is a human rights issue, I believe this is a civil rights issue as well because a substantial majority of the plaintiffs — over 90% of them — are African Americans,' Crump said. 'The proposed amendment with the $400,000 ceiling I believe is an insult to them because these African American men and women were abused and raped as boys and girls when they were in the full custody of the Maryland juvenile detention facilities.' Capping the damages on a per claimant basis is 'not just denial of equal justice, I believe it is a shame before God.' The size of the financial risk to the state is both an academic discussion lacking a lot of specifics and a budgetary boogeyman. The 2023 law lifted limitations on filing lawsuits against institutions involved in hiding sexual abuse allegations and protecting abusers. It capped liability at $890,000 per occurrence. It also raised the liability limit on claims against private institutions for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to $1.5 million. Much of the original focus was on the Roman Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Baltimore filed for federal bankruptcy protection in September 2023, one month before the new law took effect, because of mounting claims. But Wilson's law also opened the door to lawsuits against state and local governments despite warnings from some lawmakers including Sen. Justin Ready (R-Carroll and Frederick). Lawmakers were warned in January about the 'enormous liability' facing the state. Legislative analysts at the time said there were 3,500 cases against the state alleging sexual abuse, some dating back as far as the 1960s. The potential value of a settlement was not given to lawmakers at the time. Based on current law and the potential for a payout of $890,000 for each instance of abuse — which some lawmakers said remains an open legal question — the minimum payout approaches $3.1 billion, about as much as the structural budget deficit lawmakers were already facing in the coming budget year. That amount could be much higher if claimants could collect on more than one occurrence. It could also be much lower depending on the outcome of settlement negotiations with plaintiffs' attorneys, which have been ongoing. One group of nearly two dozen firms claims it currently has 5,000 clients with potential claims against state agencies, including the Department of Juvenile Services. Those attorneys said many of those clients have multiple instances of abuse. The potential liability to the state could run in the multiple billions of dollars. Those attorneys said they have been in negotiations with the Office of the Attorney General since 2023 and have asked for a fraction of the potential full value. The attorneys declined to provide specifics of the potential liability or a settlement demand citing ongoing negotiations.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Vice chair of House panel says tech tax drove decision to move business to Virginia
House Economic Matters Vice Chair Brian M. Crosby (D-St. Mary's) said a tech tax will hurt businesses such as his that do federal contracting. Last week, on the same day a budget agreement that included the tax was announced, Crosby moved his business to Virginia. (File photo by Bryan P. Sears) Del. Brian M. Crosby (D-St Mary's) is vice chair of the House Economic Matters Committee — a panel that handles many business issues — as well as the owner of a small business that is a subcontractor on Defense IT contracts. Until last week, that business was based in Maryland. But Crosby was already in the process of moving his business to Virginia last week when the governor and legislative leaders announced a budget deal that includes a 3% tax on IT, among other services, a tax that critics say poses an existential threat to businesses such as Crosby's that contract with federal agencies. 'I listened to the announcement in the truck,' he said, describing the move that came on the same day as the budget announcement. 'I've raised these issues,' Crosby said. 'I don't know what to say. I think people are still convinced that you're getting 50 cents of $1 or something.' Instead, he said the tax would mean businesses such as his would lose money on every transaction. 'All I can say is you're not taking 50 cents on $1,' Crosby said. 'You're taking $1.50 from $1.' Budget agreement could generate more than $1 billion in new revenue Crosby told his story Tuesday, minutes after his Democratic colleagues muscled through a two-bill spending plan on a preliminary vote. That plan includes the tax on data and IT services that is expected to raise nearly $500 million annually, part of the $1 billion in new revenues — and $2.5 billion in spending cuts — needed to close a $3 billion gap in the fiscal 2026 budget. Crosby noted the irony of the situation. Gov. Wes Moore (D) and other legislators say they want to grow private industry and attract IT jobs to the area. One of the largest components of that industry are the numerous defense facilities in the state — Patuxent River, Fort Meade, Fort Detrick and others. 'On one hand, we're saying we're the IT-cyber corridor,' said Crosby. 'On the other hand, the industry, which I'm a part of, is saying if you're in the DoD [Department of Defense] segment, which is the state's number one industry, you can't make it on that (tax). 'The commercial companies, they can pass it off,' he said. 'It's not the same for the DoD guys, especially the smaller guys, it's not as easy.' Smaller companies such as Crosby's often work as subcontractors to large prime contractors that are based out of state and, thus, not subject to the proposed tax, that is soon to head to the Senate. Subcontractors based in Maryland are not exempt. Crosby's five-year old company — he asked that it not be named — has been growing. He has a warehouse location in Georgia, where he plans to register his company while keeping a small presence in Maryland and a new office in Virginia Beach. The new out-of-state company will deliver on its contracts as before to its larger prime, typically exempt, contractor partners that will deliver services to the federal facilities in Maryland. 'We know the numbers,' Crosby said when asked about how the change would affect companies that do the same type of contracting. 'All I can say is that within a year, we'd file for bankruptcy.' So Crosby acted fast. The House and Senate have an agreement on the tax. Delaying a move would mean needing more trucks, as materials needed for third-quarter projects are soon to arrive. There's also the matter of bidding on future contracts. CONTACT US Delaying a move was too risky, Crosby said. Crosby may not be alone in his move should the tax pass as expected. The state Cybersecurity Association Inc. estimated that about 800 businesses similar to Crosby's could be affected by a services tax. The Maryland Chamber of Commerce estimates more than 15,000 businesses , that employ an estimated, 100,000 people, would be subject to the new tax. During Tuesday's floor debate in the House, Republicans tried to strip out the IT services tax — one of more than a dozen failed amendments offered during a sometimes testy four-hour debate. Del. Todd Morgan (R-Calvert and St. Mary's) stood feet away from Crosby as he described the choice faced by his Democratic colleague. 'Now I'm going to bring this home, ladies and gentlemen, to this room, to our colleagues, to one of my friends on the other side of the aisle,' Morgan said. 'That individual is moving his business to Virginia. 'I'll say this again, one of the colleagues in this room, who's our friend on the other side of the aisle, is moving his business to Virginia as we speak,' he said. 'So I just want that to sink in when we look at how big this picture is.'
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers consider proposal to reduce potential of billions in sex abuse payouts
House Economic Matters Chair C.T. Wilson said changes made to his 2023 Child Victims Act will prevent the state from going bankrupt and provide a measure of justice for victims abused in state facilities. But the changes still have a long way to go. (File photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters) Facing the potential of multibillion-dollar payouts, lawmakers will consider legislation this week that would limit the state's liability under the 2023 Child Victims Act. But advocates, legal experts and, not unexpectedly, attorneys for one group of nearly 5,000 plaintiffs who claim to have been sexually abused at the hands of state workers, say the proposed fix goes too far, and is likely unconstitutional. Even Del. C.T. Wilson (D-Charles), the author of both the original bill and the new proposal to rein in the state's liability, said Monday night that the proposed fix will likely be heavily rewritten. But something needs to be done, he said. When it passed, the Child Victims Act was heralded as a way for survivors of institutional sexual abuse to seek justice. But it inadvertently threw open the doors to potentially budget-crushing payouts that would be difficult for the state to absorb in a year when it is flush with cash. This is not one of those years. Wilson's proposed remedy could help limit that liability. But the bill must pass through two chambers in less than two weeks and land on the governor's desk. And then, face a court challenge. 'Without a doubt it will be litigated,' Wilson said Monday night. Wilson, who is also chair of the House Economic Matters Committee, admits that the 2023 law unleashed unintended consequences he could not foresee. 'When you go through this, you always think you're alone,' said Wilson, who has publicly discussed a childhood that included physical and sexual abuse. 'Never in my wildest dreams did I think there were this many people — enough to bankrupt the state. 'Just how much money should taxpayers pay to honestly not make a difference, to not change anything that happened?' Wilson said. 'My goal was, if they told their story, then it gets out. We used to call the bill 'The Hidden Predator Act.' That was my goal, to just face your abuser, to get a chance to expose this person for what they did. I was shocked beyond belief that there's this many people.' Thousands are suing states over sexual abuse in juvenile detention facilities The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on House Bill 1378, Wilson's bill that attempts to temper some of the unintended consequences of the 2023 law. But that proposal is already drawing concerns. D. Todd Mathews, an attorney with Bailey & Glasser, said in a March 24 letter to the Judiciary Committee that 'Wilson fought for over 10 years to enact a just law that is a good and moral redress of immoral and heinous actions. The current proposed amendments are clearly unconstitutional and designed simply to buy time for an unconstitutional law to proceed through the appellate courts to arrive right back at square one.' Bailey & Glasser, a law firm based in Washington D.C., is one of nearly two dozen firms representing roughly 5,000 plaintiffs. The coalition of firms has been in active negotiations with the Maryland Attorney General's office since 2023. 'There is already a system developed to address these claims in a very reasonable manner, far below what has been reported, which allows the Survivors to find closure,' Mathews' letter said. 'The proposed resolution has safeguards in place that protects the state and ensures the survivors are compensated accordingly.' The 2023 law lifted limitations on filing lawsuits against institutions involved in hiding sexual abuse allegations and protecting abusers. It capped liability at $890,000 per occurrence, but also raised the liability limit on claims against private institutions for noneconomic damages, such as pain and suffering, to $1.5 million. At the time, much of the focus was on the Roman Catholic Church, but the law also opened state and local governments to more lawsuits. 'I could have never comprehended 4,500 claimants, and it's an open door with another 1,500 in the hopper,' Wilson said, who again asked 'how much are taxpayers going to be on the hook for this?' 'How much of our DDA (Developmental Disabilities Administration) budget do we need to cut? How much of our Medicaid or waivers do we need to give back because we're paying this off?' Wilson asked. 'If my argument was that no amount of money is going to undo what happened, why would I expose the state to so much because of the wrongful actions of a few?' CONTACT US Red flags went up in January about the 'enormous liability' facing the state. Legislative analysts at the time said there were 3,500 cases against the state alleging sexual abuse, some dating back as far as the 1960s. No potential settlement was mentioned during that briefing, but the math was not hard: If each plaintiff made one claim of sexual abuse, at up to $890,000 each, the potential liability would be more than $3.1 billion. That is an amount roughly equal to the structural budget deficit lawmakers were already facing in the coming budget year. A source familiar with the plaintiffs' cases said the estimate is wrong for two reasons. The $3.1 billion estimate is substantially lower than the potential liability to the state based on claimants with multiple abuse allegations who might be able to collect on each individual occurrence, the source said. And it is higher than the amount sought by attorneys representing the alleged victims. The source spoke on background because of ongoing negotiations with the state, and declined to provide specific dollar amounts on the record citing those ongoing discussions. Kristen Gibbons Feden, an attorney with Philadelphia-based Anapol Weiss, said Monday that plaintiffs' attorneys 'understand that the state has concerns about the liability and, most importantly, the recovery. We hear that, we're not ignoring it.' Anapol Weiss is among the coalition of law firms that have been negotiating with the Office of the Attorney General since 2023. As introduced, HB 1378 would set new limits on claims against the state. But a draft set of amendments provided by Wilson strips the original bill, including its provision requiring cases to be filed by the end of the year. The early version of the amendments also includes a requirement that claims be handled by a state-appointed arbitrator, who would be selected by a state workgroup. Neither the workgroup nor the arbitration system would be subject to the state's open meetings or records acts, according to a draft provided by Wilson. The draft allows for an appeal before a judge but only for areas of dispute. The appeal can only be on record from the arbitration case. No jury would be involved. Budget agreement could generate more than $1 billion in new revenue Mathews, in his letter, said such a system as envisioned by the early draft would hurt victims. 'The Child Victims Act opened the courthouse doors and provided survivors of childhood sexual abuse a right to a jury trial for claims arising from their abuse,' Mathews wrote. 'Mandatory arbitration would unconstitutionally strip that vested right away from survivors. Forced arbitration of sexual assault claims is, simply put, bad policy.' Feden said the proposed changes so far 'don't strike a balance at all. They tip the scales really entirely in the state's favor. And it really, what it does is it forces survivors into a system that would limit their rights, that would restrict their access to justice and really would protect the very institutions that fail them in the first place.' Feden said she and other attorneys have been 'negotiating in good faith.' The attempt to change the law now will only hurt survivors of sexual abuse, many of whom are Black and brown, she said. 'It's a system of delay,' she said. 'If this gets caught up in the courts, what's going to happen? It's going to deny these survivors justice even longer. What the AG's office is doing here is trying to stall, stall, stall.' The proposed changes so far increase the potential for a courtroom battle. 'We are attorneys. That's what we do all day. We fight, fight, fight,' said Feden. But she said, as someone who has been 'representing survivors for close to two decades,' that the state is stalling. 'They know that the longer a survivor has to wait for justice, the likelihood that they may wait it out could be reduced,' she said. 'So it's not about the fight. We're prepared. We're ready. But when you delay justice to individuals, let's be real … look at the suicide rate, look at the trauma.' Kathleen Hoke, a University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law professor, said in an email that the amendments to the bill shown to her by a reporter attempt to create a system similar to one in New Hampshire. But they raise a number of legal questions, she said. 'I think there are concerns about legislation retroactively depriving a court of jurisdiction in a case and depriving a plaintiff of that avenue for relief; I think there are also concerns about retroactively limiting a plaintiff's recovery,' Hoke said in an email. 'These concerns are particularly acute as to claims for which a complaint has already been filed.' Hoke said she hoped lawmakers asked the Office of the Attorney General 'about the constitutionality of the bill/amendments—because that is whose opinion matters a lot here.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE A spokesperson for Attorney General Anthony Brown did not respond to a request for an interview. Lisae Jordan, executive director and counsel at Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the potential for secrecy is concerning. 'Given the subject matter, it is especially important that the state is as transparent and open about all of its decision making,' Jordan said in an interview. Wilson, in an interview, called the amendment language a 'misdraft' and said he intended to offer a proposal that required a claim go through the arbitration process. Following that, plaintiffs could seek a jury trial, he said. 'The last thing I'm going to do to these victims is let them know they have no right to a jury trial in Maryland,' Wilson said. Wilson's early amendments also attempt to limit the potential number of claims. First, it would lower the financial liability cap from $890,000 to $400,000 per occurrence. Feden called that 'a silencing tactic. Damages in civil cases are not simply financial awards … they're a legal recognition of harm, accountability and deterrence.' Language in the 2023 law included references to 'occurrences,' which quickly became a subject of debate: how to count multiple incidents of abuse of a person. Wilson's amendments would eliminate that vagary by limiting the payout to a single claimant to $400,000. 'It was never about an amount of money,' Wilson said.
