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:

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:

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.

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. 

Failure to Renew Employment Contracts Can Be Wrongful Termination

Recently, in Miller-Phoenix v. Baltimore City Board Of School Commissioners, (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 29, 2020), the Court of Special Appeals held that failing to renew an employment contract may create a wrongful termination claim under Maryland law.

In the case, Mr. Miller-Phoenix (the employee) was a public-school teacher for Baltimore City (the employer). In October 2016, the employee signed a temporary employment contract with the employer and, the next day, filed a worker’s compensation claim for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In April 2017, the employer notified the employee that his employment contract was not being renewed and he would be terminated in June 2017.

The employee filed a lawsuit against the employer for numerous alleged violations, including wrongful termination. Specifically, the employee alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for filing his workers’ compensation claim.

At the initial level, the lower court ruled in favor of the employer on all the employee’s claims. With respect to the wrongful termination claim, the lower court ruled that non-renewal of a contract could not create a wrongful termination claim.

The employee appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The appeals court ruled in favor of the employee finding that failing to renew an employment contract in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim would violate Maryland public policy.

This is an important case for contractual employees in Maryland because it reminds employers that they can potentially be held liable for failing to renew employment contracts for reasons that violate Maryland’s public policy, including because of race, sex, disability or in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.

If you think you have been wrongfully terminated, the attorneys at Lebau & Neuworth may be able to help. We are highly experienced with handling all types of employment-related cases. For more information, contact us at (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us.

Job Transfers that Affect Career Opportunities Could be Unlawful Retaliation

Lodging a justified complaint at work should not result in an undesired reaction from an employer, such as being transferred to another department. In fact, that type of response could be considered retaliation on the part of the employer – which goes against employment law.

Very recently, a Federal appeals court reinstated a professor’s lawsuit alleging that the University of New England retaliated against her for filing a sexual harassment complaint against her supervisor by transferring her to another department (Carlson v. University of New England, No. 17-1792 (1st Cir., Aug. 10, 2018)).

When Dr. Lara Carlson complained and asked for a new supervisor, she was told by the university that she would have to be removed from her department and be transferred to another department. Dr. Carlson, in order to avoid future harassment, agreed to the transfer. Her salary was not reduced, but the transfer resulted in her forfeiting many teaching assignments and her being removed as advisor to students.

Dr. Carlson filed a claim against the university for retaliation, in part because the university misled her about the effect the transfer would have on her job. Dr. Carlson said she agreed to the move only on the condition that she could keep her classes and continue to do her job, but she found that the transfer actually reduced her teaching and career opportunities.

In July 2017, the district court granted summary judgment for the university, finding that because the transfer was voluntary, it was not an adverse employment action. The district court held that Dr. Carlson had failed to prove that the university’s actions were retaliation for her harassment complaints, and that it was clear her transfer to another department was voluntary.

Dr. Carlson appealed the decision., and in August 2018, the appeals court agreed with Dr. Carlson and found that the district court ignored Dr. Carlson's argument that the dean of her department led her to transfer out of that department by misrepresenting how the move would affect her professional responsibilities. The court noted that a reasonable jury could find that the events described in Dr. Carlson’s complaint would not have happened but for her harassment report.

The attorneys at Lebau & Neuworth are highly experienced with handling job-related retaliation claims, so if you lodged a complaint and were subjected by your employer to unfavorable job transfers or other retaliatory actions, we may be able to help. For more information, contact us at (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us.

Workplace Sexual Harassment Claims In The #MeToo Era

Over the past year, the #MeToo movement has cast a spotlight on the realities of sexual harassment in the United States and has changed how allegations of sexual harassment are treated. Those changes are now affecting how courts view sexual harassment claims by employees in the workplace.

In Minarsky v. Susquehanna County, Ms. Minarsky, a female employee working as a part-time secretary, alleged that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor, the director of the Susquehanna County Department of Veteran Affairs. The harassment allegedly occurred throughout the four years Ms. Minarsky worked for her supervisor and included sexually explicit e-mails, attempts to kiss her and embraces from behind. Ms. Minarsky wanted none of her employer’s harassing advances, yet she did not immediately complain about the sexual harassment because her supervisor was a repeat offender and she feared retaliation, including losing her job.

Ms. Minarsky’s supervisor was eventually fired and she quit a few years later. After quitting, Ms. Minarsky filed a lawsuit against Susquehanna County regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The trial judge overseeing Ms. Minarsky’s case dismissed her complaint, finding that Ms. Minarsky waited too long to complain of the harassment.

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ms. Minarsky and reversed the dismissal. The appeals court held that a jury must decide whether Ms. Minarsky’s failure to report the sexual harassment was reasonable because of her specific fears of retaliation, including her supervisor’s position and the fact that he harassed other female employees without being disciplined. In support of its decision, the appeals court referenced the recent revelations of rampant sexual harassment spotlighted by the #MeToo movement and the real fear of retaliation that the victims of sexual harassment feel.

This is an important decision that has the potential to change the way courts handle allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly those that went unreported because of fear of retaliation by the harasser and/or the employer.

If you have been subjected to sexual harassment by your employer, the attorneys at Lebau & Neuworth may be able to help. We are experienced with handling sexual harassment claims. For more information, contact us at (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us.

Discipline After Complaints Of Discrimination Can Establish Retaliation Claims

Recently in Williams v. Ricoh Ams., the Federal District Court in Virginia made an important ruling in favor of employees who exercise their rights under anti-discrimination statutes. In the case, Mr. Williams, a 58 year-old African American male, was successfully employed by the defendant employer, Ricoh Americas Corporation, for 13 years. Throughout his employment, Mr. Williams had some workplace rule violations, including lateness and missing meetings, however, he was never disciplined because he was consistently one of the employer’s highest performers.

In June 2012, a white male who was younger than Mr. Williams became his new supervisor. Soon after, Mr. Williams believed the new supervisor began treating him differently than his younger, non-African American peers.

In June 2013, after enduring the perceived discrimination for a year, Mr. Williams sent the new supervisor an email in which he stated, “I am not going to allow you to treat me with a ‘Master’ mentality. I am not your slave. I am a professional sales person and expect to be treated as such.” Mr. Williams’ supervisor, offended by the slave-master comment, reported the email to human resources and upper management. A conference call was held between all interested parties, after which Mr. Williams was instructed to apologize.

Although the employer had a policy to investigate all allegations of discrimination, no investigation was conducted about Mr. Williams’ allegations.

Immediately after receiving Mr. Williams’ email, his supervisor began documenting all of Mr. Williams’ disciplinary issues. Between June 2013 and July 2015, Mr. Williams was written up numerous times for behavior for which he had never been written up prior to sending his June 2013 email. Then on January 20, 2015, he was terminated.

Subsequently, Mr. Williams filed a lawsuit alleging race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

After a period of discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor based on the facts of the case. The court denied both motions because it found there was a question of “material fact” about whether Mr. Williams’ increased discipline, immediately after sending his June 2013 email, was actually a false excuse for discrimination. The court based its decision on the fact that the employer failed to follow its own policy by not investigating Mr. Williams’ allegation of discrimination and Mr. Williams was only disciplined for pre-existing behavior after sending the email.

This case is important for employees because it requires employers to follow their own internal anti-discrimination policies. Failure to do so may indicate discrimination. Also, it underscores the fact that anti-discrimination statutes protect all employees, even those with a history of workplace rule violations.

If you think your employer has discriminated against you, the attorneys at Lebau & Neuworth may be able to help. For more information, contact us at at (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us.

Retaliation Under The False Claims Act: What An Employee Must Prove

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland, recently issued a decision that nicely sets forth what an employee must prove to establish she/he was retaliated against in violation of the False Claims Act. The case is Carlson v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC.

In order to bring government contractor fraud to light, the False Claims Act has a whistleblower provision which entitles a contractor’s employee to relief where “lawful acts done by the employee … in furtherance of an action under this section or other efforts to stop 1 or more violations of this subchapter” result in retaliatory conduct by the employer. § 3730(h)(1).  To state such an FCA retaliation claim, the employee must establish that (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer knew about the activity; and (3) the employer retaliated against him in response.

Further, there are two kinds of protected activity for employees of government contractors: (1)  filing suit under the False Claims Act alleging fraud on the government; and (2) taking action as part of an effort to stop an FCA violation.

The Fourth Circuit embraced, while not expressly adopting, the rule that to establish the second type of protected activity, an employee need only have objectively reasonable belief that the employee’s employer is violating, or soon will violate, the FCA.  This means that the employee could be wrong, but he could still have a retaliation claim if he complained when having an objectively reasonable good faith belief that there was a violation.

The Fourth Circuit ruled against the employee because he, under the facts he alleged, he could not have an objective reasonable good faith belief that the employer had committed fraud on the government. The Court stated: "We find that Carlson has failed to show that his belief that DynCorp was violating the FCA was objectively reasonable."

None of this, however, states a theory of fraud on the government. As DynCorp has maintained throughout this litigation, all Carlson has accused the company of doing is under billing the government on existing contracts. Carlson has not, in either his original complaint or his briefs to this Court, pointed to any FCA provision or case that would make under billing a violation.

Had the employee been able to identify a provision in a law or regulation that he thought the employer had violated as part of its fraud, there likely would have been a different result.

Lebau & Neuworth attorneys frequently and successfully represent both public and private sector whistleblowers. Feel free to contact us (410) 296-3030 or lebauneuworth.com/contact-us if you want to discuss your retaliation matter.