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.

University Staff, Faculty and Administrators Should Know Your Employment Rights

Maryland is the home of many fine and esteemed colleges and universities, including the Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland system (College Park, Towson, Baltimore County, Eastern Shore, Frostburg, St. Mary’s), Morgan State, St. John’s, Coppin and several others.

Lebau & Neuworth is often called upon to represent college and university staff, faculty and administrators in employment matters.

Institutions of higher learning are not immune to “market forces” – with reduced funding for basic learning and research, it is not uncommon for staff, faculty and administrators to be subject to precarious employment issues, including possible layoff, renegotiation of contracts, increased workload and grant funding requirements. Lebau & Neuworth lawyers can help you navigate these thorny issues.

Most colleges and university have detailed policies and procedures governing faculty issues, which should be the first area of inquiry when facing an employment issue or dispute. For example, tenure denials can be devastating to one’s career and someone experiencing this must very carefully follow the appeal process and obtaining legal counsel is very much advisable.

Administrators and staff often do not have the benefit of detailed policies and procedures governing employment matters. Hence, they often are in a more difficult position, with their employer having greater discretion.

When facing possible termination, it is important to make sure that the employer will not undermine job search efforts. Often times, parties can agree to mutually acceptable reference statements.

Colleges and universities are subject to the same laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. The discrimination existing in these institutions can oftentimes be very subtle. Cultural biases are implicit and often play a part in advancement and leadership decisions.

At times, overzealous attempts at diversity may result in reverse discrimination.

All colleges and universities are required to have an EEO office and all have personnel or human resource departments. However, remember that their allegiance is to the institution, not to the employee. Therefore, consideration should be given to consulting an attorney with knowledge in employment and higher education law – BEFORE invoking an internal complaint process.

If you need assistance with an employment issue involving a high-education facility, contact the experienced attorneys at Lebau & Neuworth for the proper guidance at (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us.

What is Severance Pay? A Few Things To Look Out For

One of the reasons Lebau & Neuworth is consistently named among Maryland's best lawyers is that we have experience in dealing with severance pay claims. What is severance pay? It is a pay and benefits package an employee receives when leaving a company. But there are things you must watch out for. When determining whether you are eligible for severance pay under your employer’s severance pay plan, it is important to consider both the language of the plan and the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), the federal law that governs such plans. Recently The United States District Court For The District Of Maryland addressed this issue in Kirby v. Frontier Medex. There, Mr. Kirby was former the CEO of Medex. Medex underwent a change in control during a merger on February 16, 2011. Under the terms of his employer’s severance pay plan Mr. Kirby would be eligible for severance pay if he were terminated within one year of the change in control. Medex ended Mr. Kirby’s work duties, putting him on permanent leave with pay, on January 24, 2012. On that date he was also notified in writing that he would be formally terminated on February 23, 2012, one week after the severance eligibility period ended. Mr. Kirby subsequently sued claiming that his employer improperly refused to pay him severance under the plan; alleging he was actually terminated on January 24, 2012, within the one-year eligibility period. The court considered two different ways Mr. Kirby’s employer possibly improperly denied him severance pay. First, the court considered a breach of contract claim. Under this analysis the court considered whether Mr. Kirby’s employer violated the terms of the severance agreement. The court found that his employer’s actions were acceptable under the terms of the severance plan; therefore, they had not improperly refused to pay Mr. Kirby severance. The court went on to consider whether the employer interfered with Mr. Kirby’s rights under ERISA. Mr. Kirby asserted that he was actually terminated on January 24, 2012, when all his duties ended, however, he claimed that his employer continued to pay him until February 23, 2012 for the purpose of depriving him of severance benefits. Under ERISA section 1140, it's unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against a benefits plan participant or beneficiary for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which he may become entitled under the plan. The court looked to section 1140 and determined that Mr. Kirby’s employer’s actions may have been in violation of ERISA, a question that would have to be resolved by a jury, rather than the court. This case illustrates two very important points. First, the terms of an employer’s severance or other benefit plan will often favor the employer and courts will often interpret them in an employer’s favor. Second, even if an employer’s acts do not violate the terms of a benefit plan, they may violate the protections of ERISA. If you think your employer is improperly interfering with your right to severance or other benefits, the attorneys at Lebau & Neuworth may be able to help. We are experienced in dealing with these types of claims. For more information, contact us today.

CVS Lawsuit: Why the EEOC Is Taking Action Against The Company's Severance Agreements

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just issued a press release about its recently filed lawsuit against CVS. Just what is at stake in the CVS lawsuit? The employer’s overly broad severance agreements that try to prevent employees talking amongst themselves about discrimination:

CVS, the nation's largest integrated provider of prescriptions and health-related services, unlawfully violated employees' right to communicate with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and file discrimination charges, the federal agency claimed in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC, CVS conditioned the receipt of severance benefits for certain employees on an overly broad severance agreement set forth in five pages of small print. The agreement interfered with employees' right to file discrimination charges and/or communicate and cooperate with the EEOC, the agency said.

Interfering with these employee rights violates Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employer conduct that constitutes a pattern or practice of resistance to the rights protected by Title VII, the EEOC said. Section 707 permits the agency to seek immediate relief without the same pre-suit administrative process that is required under Section 706 of Title VII, and does not require that the agency's suit arise from a discrimination charge, and does not require that the agency's suit arise from a discrimination charge.

Specifically, the EEOC found that the severance agreements contained several provisions designed at chilling employees’ rights to discuss and cooperate in EEOC investigations about unlawful discrimination and retaliation, including:

- A cooperation clause, which required the employees to notify CVS’s general counsel upon receipt of, among other things, an administrative complaint.
- A non-disparagement clause, which prohibited the employees from making any statements that disparage or harm CVS’s reputation. (I told you I don’t like these provisions.)
- A confidentiality clause, which prohibited the employee from disclosing any personnel information.
- A general release, which included any claims of discrimination.
- A covenant not to sue, which prohibited the employee from filing any complaints, actions, lawsuits, or proceedings against CVS, but which expressly carved out the employee’s right to participate in, or cooperate with, any state or federal discrimination proceeding or investigation.
- An attorneys’ fees provision, which required the employee to reimburse CVS for its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred as the result of a breach of the agreement by the employee.

The outcome of this lawsuit will be of great importance in setting limits on what an employer can and cannot attempt to force upon an employee in exchange for severance pay and benefits. Lebau & Neuworth will follow the CVS lawsuit closely.