What Qualifies As Wrongful Termination In Maryland?

Losing your job is never easy, but if you suspect your termination wasn't fair, you have more options than you think. Wrongful termination occurs when an employer violates state or federal employment laws, such as dismissing an employee for discriminatory reasons, retaliating against whistleblowers, or failing to honor employment agreements. Maryland employees are protected by laws that uphold their rights in the workplace, and understanding these laws is the first step toward justice.

If you believe your firing was unjust, the experienced team at Lebau & Neuworth is ready to fight for your rights. Contact us today to have a strong advocate on your side. With a simple and free consultation about your case, you can take the first steps toward holding your employer accountable.

What Is Considered Wrongful Termination in Maryland?

Wrongful termination in Maryland occurs when an employer dismisses an employee in violation of state or federal employment laws. This can include firing someone based on discriminatory factors such as race, gender, age, or religion. Retaliation against employees who report unsafe working conditions, harassment, or other workplace violations is another example of wrongful termination. Employers who breach the terms of a written or implied employment contract also open themselves up to liability for unjustly letting employees go. These actions are not only violations of the law but betray the trust employees place in their employers.

Maryland employees who believe they’ve been wrongfully terminated have the right to seek justice. By consulting with an experienced employment attorney, workers can get clarity about their situation, understand their legal protections, and pursue fair remedies. Legal support empowers employees to hold their employers accountable and helps them rebuild their lives after an unjust dismissal.

Legal Grounds for Wrongful Termination Claims

Understanding the legal grounds for wrongful termination claims is crucial for Maryland employees who suspect their dismissal was unjust. Wrongful termination occurs when an employer violates specific employment laws while firing an employee, depriving them of their rights in the workplace. To identify whether a claim is valid, employees should look for key legal violations that might have occurred during their termination. Maryland, like other states, offers protections under both state and federal laws to ensure workers are treated fairly.

Here are some common legal grounds for wrongful termination claims in Maryland:

Discrimination-based termination tied to race, gender, age, religion, disability, or other protected characteristics.
Retaliation for reporting workplace violations, such as harassment, unsafe conditions, or illegal practices.
Firing in violation of employment contracts, including written, implied, or oral agreements.
Termination for taking protected leave, such as time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or state laws.
Dismissal in violation of public policy, such as firing someone for refusing to commit an illegal act or for serving on a jury.

Understanding the legal grounds for wrongful termination equips Maryland employees with the knowledge to evaluate their situation and determine if their dismissal violated state or federal laws. If the circumstances of your termination appear to align with one or more of these legal violations, it’s a clear signal to consult with an experienced employment attorney who can provide guidance and pursue justice on your behalf.

Maryland-Specific Laws Affecting Wrongful Termination

While federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) set essential baselines, state-specific statutes like the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) go further to protect workers. FEPA not only enforces prohibitions against discrimination based on race, gender, age, or disability but also addresses retaliation more comprehensively, ensuring employees can safely report workplace violations without fear of losing their job.

Additionally, Maryland’s Healthy Working Families Act strengthens these protections by guaranteeing eligible employees access to paid sick leave, a benefit not fully covered under federal law. These state-level laws bridge gaps in federal legislation, reinforcing workers’ rights in critical areas like discrimination, retaliation, and access to protected leave of absence. With these added layers of protection, Maryland employees can feel more confident when challenging unjust terminations and holding their employers accountable for violating their rights.

How to Prove Wrongful Termination in Maryland

Proving wrongful termination in Maryland relies on building a strong, evidence-based case. This process involves collecting documentation that directly supports your claims, such as records or communications showing discrimination, instances of retaliation, or breaches of an employment contract. It’s essential to present a coherent narrative of events that links your termination to unlawful motives or actions by your employer.

By connecting the evidence to legal violations, you can demonstrate that your dismissal was not justified, strengthening your position and creating a compelling case for claims of wrongful termination. Attorneys can help you gather the necessary documentation, build a strong case, and understand the specific laws that apply to your situation. They will guide you step-by-step, from evaluating your claim to presenting evidence in court or during negotiations.

When arguing a wrongful termination claim, judges consider several key factors. Understanding what needs to be demonstrated can strengthen your case. These factors often include:

Evidence of discrimination based on a protected characteristic, such as race, gender, or age.
Proof of retaliation for reporting violations, such as unsafe working conditions or harassment.
Clear documentation of an employment contract and proof that the terms were violated.
Records showing termination after taking legally protected leave, such as family or medical leave.
Any related communications, including emails or performance reviews, that contradict the stated reason for your termination.

It’s not just about losing your paycheck; it can affect your confidence, damage your professional reputation, and make finding a new position more challenging. The financial strain, paired with the frustration of being treated unfairly, can leave you wondering what to do next. Talking to a wrongful termination attorney can help you decide if legal action is right for your situation and guide you through the process.

What to Do If You Believe You Were Wrongfully Terminated

If you believe you’ve been wrongfully terminated, it’s important to remember that your efforts and dedication as an employee don’t go unnoticed, and your rights matter. Maryland has specific protections for workers, and these rules are meant to ensure that employers don’t misuse their power. If you think you were dismissed for an unlawful reason, taking some of these steps can help you stand up for yourself and seek a fair resolution.

Speak with an experienced employment attorney who can evaluate your case, explain your options, and guide you through the legal process.
Review your employer’s policies and your employment contract for any violations.
Document everything that might support your claim, such as emails, texts, performance reviews, or witness statements.
Write down the details of your termination, including what was said, who was involved, and the justification your employer provided.
Contact the Maryland Department of Labor or a relevant agency for guidance.

If you believe you were wrongfully terminated, reaching out to Lebau & Neuworth for a free consultation is an important first step. During the consultation, you’ll have the opportunity to share your experience and learn more about your legal options. Our attorneys can help you determine whether your case qualifies as wrongful termination and provide clarity on the support you may need. Taking advantage of this free resource can help you make informed decisions about how to proceed.

Contact Lebau & Neuworth for Legal Support

Being wrongfully terminated is more than just losing a job; it can feel unfair, confusing, and like a betrayal of the hard work you’ve put in. Depending on your situation, navigating the next steps may seem challenging; that’s where Lebau & Neuworth comes in. Our experienced legal team understands the complexities of employment law and is committed to advocating for workers like you who deserve better. If you believe your rights were violated, contacting Lebau & Neuworth can be the first step toward regaining a sense of stability and fairness. We’re here to listen, help build your case, and fight for the resolution you deserve.

Amazon’s Broken Leave System Misdelivers for Employees

Lebau & Neuworth lawyers have represented numerous employees of Amazon – which has huge warehouses and delivery centers in Maryland – in various disputes, including claims for overtime wages, wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment and disability benefits.

A recent New York Times article detailed the ongoing mess that is Amazon’s employee leave system. The world’s largest retailer can deliver packages to customer’s in under 24 hours, but when employees need leave from work, they are forced to go through a complex web of apps, software, and phone trees to request the leave. If the leave request is approved, employees then face numerous other difficulties, including the software marking employees on leave as no-shows, losing doctor’s notes, and issues reaching case managers.

Amazon’s leave system is not only a huge inconvenience for its employees, but it could potentially be violating laws such as the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Amazon’s broken leave system could expose it to liability for violations of the FMLA or ADA. For example, if leave is denied because an employee’s doctor note is lost, that may be a violation of the employee’s rights under the FMLA and/or ADA; or if an employee who is on approved FMLA or ADA leave is terminated because Amazon’s leave system marked him or her as “no-show,” that could be a violation of the employee’s rights under the FMLA and/or ADA.

The FMLA is a federal law that entitles eligible employees to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period. FMLA leave can be given for:

the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;
the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;
to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition;
a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job; and
any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on “covered active duty.”

The FMLA covers employers, such as Amazon, who have 50 or more employees in 20 or more workweeks in a year. Employees may be eligible for FMLA if they work for a covered employer for at least 12 months; have worked at least 1,250 hours during the 12 months before the leave; and work where the employer has at least 50 employees within 75 miles.

Amazon’s point system that we have come across in Maryland, when not properly administered, can violate the FMLA.

The FMLA prohibits Amazon from disciplining any employee who has an FMLA-protected absence. This means that an employee should not receive an unfavorable evaluation or points when out on FMLA leave. Also, Amazon is required to return the employee to a substantially equivalent position (same pay and benefits) when returning from FMLA leave.

The ADA is the federal law that makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees, like Amazon, from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA also requires employers to give reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, which can include leave work for limited periods of time even when the employee has no more leave left or is not yet eligible for FMLA leave.

Importantly, in Montgomery County, Maryland, Amazon has to comply with the county’s paid sick leave law. This is in addition to complying with the FMLA and ADA.

If you have questions about FMLA leave or ADA accommodations, Lebau & Neuworth may be able to help. For more information, contact us at (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us.

District of Columbia Enacts New Paid Family Leave Law

On February 1, 2020, the District of Columbia (D.C.) Department of Employment Services released a new mandatory Paid Family Leave Employee Notice. The notice contains information regarding employee rights and paid-leave benefits provided by the Universal Paid Leave Amendment Act of 2016.

Under the new law, which goes into effect July 1, 2020, covered employees may take up to a maximum of eight (8) weeks of paid leave per year for any combination of the following reasons:

Parental Leave for bonding with a new child (up to 8 weeks per year);
Family Leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition (up to 6 weeks a year); and/or
Medical Leave for the employee’s serious health condition (up to 2 weeks a year).

Employees taking eligible leave will receive partial wage-replacement benefits from the Office of Paid Family Leave. The paid leave is funded through payroll taxes paid by employers. All employers who do business in D.C. and also pay unemployment insurance are required to pay into the paid leave fund.

The District’s new paid-leave benefits are an important addition to existing family leave laws such as the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

For additional information about the new paid leave law, including a benefit estimator, visit the Department of Employment Services website here.

The attorneys of Lebau & Neuworth are experienced in handling cases involving Paid Leave; if you require assistance with an issue pertaining to paid leave, we may be able to help. Contact Lebau & Neuworth at (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us.

Employees May be Entitled to Additional Leave from Employers as a 'Reasonable Accommodation'

Health is a precious commodity for everyone. Unfortunately, there are times that health fails us and in those instances, we hope that our employers stand by us while we recover and recuperate. However, this is not always the case.

Employers often think that employees who have exhausted their 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) are not entitled to additional leave time and can be terminated if they cannot return to work immediately. What the employers do not realize is that, even if an employee’s leave is no longer covered by the FMLA or was not covered in the first place, other protections may apply. This includes protections created by the Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.), as amended. The law is intended to protect persons with disabilities.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) has spoken extensively about this topic. For example, under the resource document (Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act) issued by the E.E.O.C. earlier this year, employers are required to provide disability accommodation leave even for disabled employees who have exhausted all FMLA and other required or permitted medical leaves, unless the employer can show undue hardship.

Leave has also been explicitly identified as a “reasonable accommodation” under the A.D.A. in nearly every circuit court across the country. Employers must consider providing unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation, as long as the leave does not create an undue hardship for the employer. This is true even if the employee has already used up all available leave under the FMLA and even if the employee is not entitled to leave under the employer’s policies. That means that even after FMLA and similar leaves of absence have been exhausted, if an employee is not yet ready to return to work, an employer may not discharge the employee without first considering additional leave as a reasonable accommodation.

If an employee is not entitled to or eligible for FMLA leave under any employer’s leave programs, the employer must then consider providing leave outside of its leave program as a reasonable accommodation. That requires the employer to promptly engage with the employee in an “interactive process” to determine the need for and duration of the leave and whether other (or additional) reasonable accommodations are necessary. An employer has a duty to interact with the employee to determine whether the additional leave being requested is reasonable under the circumstances.

In the recent case of Sharbaugh v. West Haven Manor, LP (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161264), a federal court in Pennsylvania dismissed the employer’s summary judgment motion and held that the employer had a duty to interact with the employee, Mr. Sharbaugh, after he requested additional time off work and that the employer failed, in bad faith, to assist Mr. Sharbaugh in obtaining a reasonable accommodation. It was found that the employer acted in bad faith by purposefully avoiding interaction with Mr. Sharbaugh that may have clarified Mr. Sharbaugh’s return-to-work date, thereby rendering his requested accommodation reasonable.

If you have an employment law question or issue, the attorneys at Lebau & Neuworth, LLC, stand ready to discuss it with you. Contact us at (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us.

Employees Should Take Care When Submitting Doctor’s Notes to Employers

In an ongoing lawsuit under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in U.S. District Court for Maryland, the court reconfirmed 4th Circuit precedent that, when employees provide a doctor’s note to employers to request a job accommodation, the employer can hold employees to those restrictions. An employee cannot force an employer to ‘waive’ the restrictions and let him or her back to the old job, said the court, unless the employee gets further clearance from the doctor. EEOC v. Graystar Mgmt Serv., LLP, No. ELH-11-2789 (D. Md., Mem. Op. Dec. 18, 2013) (denying summary judgment). In EEOC v. Graystar Mgmt Serv., LLP, a pregnant housekeeper at an apartment complex in Rockville, Maryland, asked her employer if she could reduce using cleaning chemicals because of her pregnancy. Housekeepers used over 10 different products, about 75% of the time while at work. Id. at 4-11. The employer provided the housekeeper chemical free light duty, for a few weeks, while the housekeeper got doctor’s notes supporting her restrictions and request for accommodation. Id. at 11-17. When the employer determined housekeeping at their facility required constant chemical use, they put the employee on unpaid leave. The employee tried to recant. She wished to work anyway. Id. While there is some dispute over the facts here, which is why the court has set the lawsuit for trial, see id. at 53, the court reasoned that an employer did not have to simply ‘waive’ consideration of already submitted doctor’s notes, because an employee wished to continue working, under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act or under other federal disability laws. Id. at 36-45 (citing Young v. UPS, Inc., 707 F.3d 437 (4^th Cir. 2013) & Hohn v. BNFS Ry. Co., 707 F.3d 995, 1003 (8^th Cir. 2013), among other cases). So why is this case going to trial? The EEOC alleges that Graystar discriminated against this pregnant housekeeper because managers involved had a “fetal protection policy.” Allegedly, the managers sought to protect the unborn child from chemicals regardless of any concern for the housekeeper. Id. at 25-34. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) amends Title VII’s definition of “sex discrimination” to ensure pregnant women are not treated worse, and treated equally, in accordance with law. Id. at 21. If proven true at trial, the court seems prepared to hold that such treatment of a pregnant employee, because of “improper concern for the fetus,” equals pregnancy discrimination against the mother under the PDA. Id. at 34-35.