Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondents in this case were an instructional aid and teacher employed by the public school system. Petitioner, the Department of Human Resources, received reports accusing Respondents of committing child abuse and later issued a finding of "child physical abuse - unsubstantiated." As a result, neither Respondent was named as the alleged abuser, but Respondents' names were entered into the central registry of child abuse investigations. Respondents requested an appeal regarding the decision of 'unsubstantiated' child physical abuse, but the Department denied the requests. Respondents subsequently filed mandamus actions, which the circuit court dismissed. The court of special appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Department failed to interpret Md. Code Ann. Fam. Law 5-706.1(c) properly, and that individuals who are investigated by a local department, with a resultant finding of "unsubstantiated," have a right to appeal regardless of any additional findings of actual responsibility. View "Baltimore City Dep't of Social Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant Nancy Forster was terminated from the position of state public defender by the board of trustees of the state office of public defender. Forster subsequently filed a wrongful discharge action against the office of the public defender without first appealing administratively her termination. The circuit court dismissed Forster's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Forster appealed, arguing that the circuit court erroneously granted the State's motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits of Forster's claim, holding that Forster failed to exhaust the available and primary administrative remedy provided to at-will, executive service State employees under Md. Code Ann. State Pers. & Pens. 11-305, even though she was not given written notice by the board of trustees of the availability of that avenue of appeal, as section 11-305 does not require the appointing authority to provide notice of the available administrative appeal. View "Forster v. Office of Public Defender " on Justia Law

Deputy Erick Gindlesperger of the county sheriff's office filed a subpoena request seeking to compel Sheriff Darren Popkin to produce documents prior to a disciplinary hearing under the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBR). The hearing board denied the request, and Gindlesperger field a motion for show cause order. The circuit court determined that Md. Code Ann. Pub. Safety 3-107(d) entitled Gindlesperger to pre-hearing production of various enumerated documents. Sheriff Popkin appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the circuit court committed reversible error when it ordered the pre-LEOBR hearing production of the enumerated documents, as section 3-107(d)(1) does not provide for compelling production of records and documents by subpoena in advance of an LEOBR disciplinary hearing. View "Popkin v. Gindlesperger" on Justia Law

In December 2008, State Employee was notified that her employment was terminated. Employee submitted a timely written appeal of her termination to the secretary of her agency. In August 2009, when Employee received no response to her repeated requests for a decision, Employee sought to have the matter appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The Secretary forwarded the appeal to the Office of Administrative Hearings. The ALJ dismissed the appeal pursuant to several provisions of the State Personnel Management System. The circuit court and court of special appeals affirmed. At issue before the Court of Appeals was how the provisions of the State Personnel Management System are to be implemented when, as here, a terminated employee notes a timely appeal to the head of the principal unit and the head of the principal unit fails within fifteen days thereafter to issue a written decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a state employee in this circumstance must assume at the end of the fifteen-day period that the appeal has been denied and take any further appeal within ten days thereafter. View "Fisher v. E. Corr. Inst." on Justia Law

Respondents Wayne Singleton and his eight-year-old son were passengers in a bus when the bus left the road and collided with a tree. Respondents sued Petitioner, the District of Columbia, alleging that it was liable vicariously for the negligence of its assumed employee, the driver. Respondents produced at trial only themselves as witnesses and argued that res ipsa loquitur supplied an adequate inference of negligence to complete their prima facie case. The trial judge granted the District's motion for judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under the circumstances of this case, Respondents failed to show that they were entitled to an inference of negligence, as Respondents' evidence failed to demonstrate that negligence on the part of the bus driver was more probably than not the cause of the accident or to eliminate other potential causes of the accident. View "Dist. of Columbia v. Singleton" on Justia Law

On two separate occasions, Respondent Edy Sanchez filed for benefits with the Workers' Compensation Commission while previous orders, in the same claim, were pending on appeal in the courts. The Commission decided that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Respondent's requests because of the pending appeals. The circuit court affirmed, holding that the Commission did not retain jurisdiction pending an appeal because the issues raised in the new filings did not fit within the jurisdictional provisions of Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-742. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that the Commission had jurisdiction over Respondent's new issues under section 9-736(b). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) under section 9-736(b), the Commission retains jurisdiction to hear new issues while other issues in the same claim are pending on appeal, so long as no evidence was taken or decision made on the new issues in the hearing from which the appeal was taken; and (2) section 9-742 was not intended to reduce the Commission's ongoing jurisdiction to grant relief, notwithstanding the appeal. View "Potomac Abatement, Inc. v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

After Hospital declined to renew the privileges of Physician due to repeated complaints about Physician, Physician sued for damages. Hospital claimed immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA). The circuit court granted summary judgment to Hospital, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to answer whether in the context of a summary judgment proceeding, the presumption of HCQIA immunity is rebutted upon the showing of material facts in dispute regarding the physician's reporting of substandard medical care and attempts to improve the quality of the care in the hospital system. The Court affirmed, holding (1) evidence of retaliation will not prevent summary judgment on HCQIA immunity unless it can permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that (i) the defendant failed to comply with the standards for immunity set forth in 42 U.S.C. 11112(a), or (ii) the action was not a "professional review action" under 42 U.S.C. 11151(9); and (2) in this instance, Physician did not produce evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that Hospital failed to satisfy the standards for immunity set forth in HCQIA, and therefore, summary judgment was warranted. View "Freilich v. Upper Chesapeake Health Sys." on Justia Law

Employee filed a complaint against Employer, claiming (1) racial and sex discrimination after Employer required her to undergo an independent medical examination for a gynecological condition, and (2) retaliatory termination of her employment. A jury held for Employee on the issues of sex discrimination and retaliatory termination. Employee was awarded damages and attorney's fees. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that Employee's claims were preempted by the Labor-Management Relations Act, and even if they were not, Employee failed to adduce sufficient evidence of her claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the court of special appeals' erred in determining that Employee's retaliation claim was preempted where it was independent of a collective-bargaining agreement; (2) the court of special appeals erred in its analysis of the comparator evidence in the context of Employee's claim of disparate treatment; (3) Employee presented legally sufficient evidence that she was subject to retaliatory treatment. View "Taylor v. Giant of Maryland, LLC" on Justia Law

Employee received two knee injuries while working as a firefighter for Employer. Employee filed claims with the Worker's Compensation Commission, requesting disability compensation for the loss of income stemming from each injury. The Commission ordered that Employee should receive temporary partial disability compensation for the period in which he worked light duty after both injuries. Employer sought judicial review. At issue before the circuit court was whether a loss of Employee's ability to work overtime, and its associated loss in overtime compensation, qualified as a lessening of Employee's wage earning capacity for the purposes of Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-615(a). The circuit court affirmed the Commission's order, ruling that the term "wage earning capacity" could fairly include overtime compensation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the term "wage," as used in the phrase "wage earning capacity" in section 9-615(a), includes compensation paid for overtime hours worked prior to temporary partial disability; and (2) the Commission correctly determined that Employee's wage earning capacity was "less," under section 9-615(a), entitling him to compensation payment in accordance with the calculation scheme set forth in that section. View "Montgomery County v. Deibler" on Justia Law

Respondent and Cross Petitioner (Respondent), a former church employee, filed a sixteen-count civil action against Petitioners and Cross Respondents (Petitioners), including a church and a bishop, claiming that she was the victim of sexual harassment and employment discrimination. The circuit court granted Petitioners' motion to exclude all evidence of Respondent's job performance, citing the First Amendment's ministerial exception. After dismissing certain counts on the ground that they were barred by the statute of limitations, the court granted summary judgment to Petitioners. The court of special appeals reversed in part and remanded, concluding that Respondent was entitled to a new trial on four of her claims, which the court found were timely filed under the continuing violation doctrine. The Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari and affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) Respondent's claims of hostile work environment and gender discrimination were not barred by the statute of limitations or the ministerial exception; and (2) the remainder of Respondent's claims at issue would necessarily involve judicial inquiry into church governance, and such an inquiry was prohibited by the First Amendment. Remanded. View "Prince of Peace Lutheran Church v. Linklater" on Justia Law