Court Opinion

ID: 9759338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:13:30.054712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:01.264115
License: Public Domain

BATTAGLIA, J.,
dissenting, in which RAKER, J. joins in Part A:
I respectfully dissent.
A.
Section 42 of Article 49B (b)(1) provides that claims for discrimination in Prince George’s, Montgomery, and Howard Counties “be commenced in the circuit court for the county in which the alleged discrimination took place not later than 2 years after the occurrence of the alleged discriminatory act. ” Maryland Code (1957, 1998 Rep. vol.), § 42(b)(1) of Article 49B (emphasis added). Section 27-19 of the Montgomery County Code provides that an employer must not “fail or *501refuse to hire, fail to accept the services of, discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual” on the basis of race, gender, religion, or other discriminatory grounds. Montgomery County Code, § 27-19 (2001) (emphasis added).
In this case, the Petitioner, Suzanne Haas, alleged in her complaint that “[t]he actions of Lockheed [Martin] in terminating [her]” from her position as Program Administrator constituted “handicap discrimination” because “Lockheed clearly regarded Haas as being disabled” on account of her Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Although she physically left her employment on October 23, 2001, because of her employer’s sufferance, the statute of limitations began to run on October 9, 2001, when Lockheed Martin notified Ms. Haas by letter of the termination of her position.
Our jurisprudence, as well as that of the Supreme Court, federal circuit courts of appeals, and the majority of our sister states supports this result. The majority, however, rejects not only our precedent, but the plethora of cases that reach the opposite result in order to accommodate negotiation and conciliation between employers and employees, efforts which the majority concedes were not the basis for Ms. Haas’s delay in filing suit.
In Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980), the Supreme Court addressed the instant issue. In Ricks, a professor alleged that the Delaware State College discriminated against him in its decision to deny him tenure. The trial judge dismissed the professor’s claim on the ground that it was untimely filed because the discriminatory act occurred when the college made its decision not to grant the professor tenure; therefore, the statute of limitations had begun to run on the date that the professor was officially notified of the college’s decision, rather than when he left his employment. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling and held that “the only alleged discrimination occurred—and the filing limitations periods therefore commenced—at the time the tenure decision was made and communicated to [the professor].” Id. at 258, 101 S.Ct. at 504, *50266 L.Ed.2d at 439-40. The Supreme Court noted that, although the alternative approach, in which the statute of limitations begins to run on the last day of employment, may provide a simpler approach, “Congress has decided that time limitations periods commence with the date of the ‘alleged unlawful employment practice’,” and that decision “ ‘reflects a value judgment concerning the point at which the interests in favor of protecting valid claims are outweighed by the interests in prohibiting the prosecution of stale ones’ ”. Id. at 259, 260, 101 S.Ct. at 505, 66 L.Ed.2d at 440, 441, quoting Johnson v. Ry. Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 463-64, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 1721-22, 44 L.Ed.2d 295, 303 (1975). Further, the Court observed that the alternative “final day of employment” rule could discourage employers from giving employees a grace period to seek employment elsewhere. Id. at 260 n. 12, 101 S.Ct. at 505 n. 12, 66 L.Ed.2d at 441 n. 12.
The Supreme Court revisited this issue in Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 102 S.Ct. 28, 70 L.Ed.2d 6 (1981), in which the plaintiffs alleged discrimination in the decision of the Puerto Rico Department of Education to terminate their employment. The trial court dismissed the claim as untimely, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding that the claims began to accrue not upon the plaintiffs’ notification of the employer’s decision to terminate them, but when their employment was actually terminated. The Supreme Court, in reversing, concluded that the Chardon and Ricks cases were indistinguishable; “in each case, the operative decision was made—and notice given—in advance of a designated date on which employment terminated.” Id. at 8, 102 S.Ct. at 29, 70 L.Ed.2d at 8. Emphasizing that “reasonable notice cannot extend the period within which suit must be filed,” the Supreme Court therefore held that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiffs were notified of their employer’s final decision, not when their employment actually terminated. Id.1
*503Although not controlling, Supreme Court precedent should be afforded deference because, as our colleagues on the Court of Special Appeals so recognized when they affirmed summary judgment for Lockheed Martin, Article 49B is patterned after Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Montrose Christian Sch. Corp. v. Walsh, 863 Md. 565, 580, 770 A.2d 111, 120 (2001) (stating that Article 49B of the Maryland Code “was modeled after the federal anti-discrimination law”); Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621, 632-33, 672 A.2d 608, 614 (1996) (concluding that, because Article 49B was modeled after federal law, the Court may look to the legislative history of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act to discern the legislative intent behind Article 49B).
The General Assembly passed the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Law, codified at Article 49B, in response to the federal enactment of Title VII and acted so quickly that Article 49B went into effect one day before its federal counterpart. See Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 316 Md. 603, 607, 561 A.2d 179, 181 (1989). As Title VII has been updated at *504the federal level, the General Assembly has harmonized Article 49B to federal law. See 1973 Md. Laws, Chap. 493; Molesworbh, 341 Md. at 632-33, 672 A.2d at 614 (explaining that Chapter 493 of the Acts of 1973 states that it was passed to generally conform the State Fair Employment Practices Law to the 1972 Amendments of Title VII, Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.); Md. Comm’n on Human Relations v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 280 Md. 35, 40-43, 371 A.2d 645, 674-49 (1977) (noting that the General Assembly’s amendments to Article 49B were needed to conform Maryland law to the 1972 amendments of Title VII and looking to Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act to define “person” as used in the newly conformed and reenacted § 18 of Article 49B). The Montgomery County Code also mirrors the unlawful employment practices prohibited by Title VII and Article 49B, differing only because the County Code contains a more expansive list of unlawful practices. Montgomery County Code § 27-1 (b) (2001) (“The prohibitions in this article are substantially similar, but not necessarily identical, to prohibitions in federal and state law.”). Considering the mimicry of state and local laws to Title VII, it is appropriate to consider federal precedents when interpreting state and local laws.
The Majority concludes incorrectly that the “plain meaning of ‘discharge’ concurs with the view that a discharge occurs at the time the employee is terminated actually from employment.” As used in § 27-19, the aspect of discharge that constitutes the “occurrence of the alleged discriminatory act” is the decision by the employer to terminate the employee. Maryland and Montgomery County’s statutory scheme focuses on the discriminatory act and provides that an employer must not “discharge any individual,” and that an employee has two years “after the occurrence of the alleged discriminatory act” to file a claim. Montgomery County Code, § 27-19(a); Maryland Code (1957,1998 Rep. vol.), § 42(b)(1) of Article 49B. The notice to terminate incorporates the allegedly discriminatory decision and provides the basis for a claim under § 49B. An alleged discriminatory act occurs upon notice of termination. As the Supreme Court has stated, “the proper focus is on the time of the discriminatory act, not the point at which the *505consequences of the act become painful.” Chardon, 454 U.S. at 8, 102 S.Ct. 28 at 29, 70 L.Ed.2d at 9 (emphasis in original). Moreover, notice of termination is a very significant event— especially when the employee questions the legality of the employer’s decision—and it is likely to cause the employee mental and emotional suffering.
The Majority relies on judicial decisions in Hawaii, California, and New Jersey that have declined to follow the Ricks/Chardon rule, but fails to consider that the reasoning of those courts was influenced by the underlying statutes and facts of those cases, all of which are significantly different than the statutes and facts in the case sub judice. In Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Company, 76 Hawai'i 454, 879 P.2d 1037 (1994), the statute of limitations at issue was 90 days long, as opposed to Maryland’s generous two years. The Ross court based its decision on an analysis of the plain language, but then proceeded to further justify its departure from the Ricks/Char-don rule by emphasizing that less savvy employees would fail to pursue the filing of an administrative complaint within ninety days if the statute of limitations started upon notice. Id. at 1045. Maryland’s two year statute of limitations guarantees the protection against discrimination by employers—even for less savvy employees—while also protecting employers from the burden of defending employment decisions that are long past.2
The employee in Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 479, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 20, 926 P.2d 1114 (1996), was given notice in December 1988 that he would be terminated when he reached 85 service points under the company retirement plan, which would occur May 31, 1991. Thus, Romano had approximately one and a half years notice of his unequivocal termination. In construing the state’s one year statute of limitations, the Supreme Court of California relied on Ross *506and emphasized that adoption of Ricks/Chardon would require an employee to initiate a complaint while still employed. Romano addresses a unique set of facts and a shorter statute of limitations. Haas, like the majority of employees, received two weeks notice of her impending termination. If an employee in Maryland chooses not to file a claim while still working, the employee is in no way impeded from filing a claim in the next 102 weeks. Even when a Romano-]ike situation develops, the Supreme Court has made it clear that, “[i]t is true that ‘the filing of a lawsuit might tend to deter efforts at conciliation.’ But this is the ‘natural effect of the choice Congress has made’ in explicitly requiring that the limitations period commence with the date of the ‘alleged unlawful employment practice’ ”. Ricks, 449 U.S. at 259 n. 11,101 S.Ct. at 505 n. 11, 66 L.Ed.2d at 440 n. 11, quoting Johnson, 421 U.S. at 461, 95 S.Ct. at 1721, 44 L.Ed.2d at 302 (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, if the parties are able to reconcile their differences, the employee may nonetheless feel he or she was discriminated against and file a civil suit.
The New Jersey cases also are not persuasive. In Alderiso v. Medical Center of Ocean County, Inc., 167 N.J. 191, 770 A.2d 275 (2001), a one year statute of limitations was at issue and the employee was given oral notice of termination. Maryland’s statute is two years and Haas was given unequivocal notice in writing. Holmin v. TRW, Inc., 330 N.J.Super. 30, 748 A.2d 1141 (2000), considered a claim for fraudulent inducement to retire, a claim subject to a six year statute of limitations.
Many of our sister courts, which also have espoused the date of notification approach, have done so on the grounds that it promotes and protects many important public policies. The Utah Court of Appeals in Clarke v. Living Scriptures, Inc., 114 P.3d 602 (Utah Ct.App.2005), stated that a contrary approach
would discourage employers from providing post-termination benefits. See, e.g., Naton v. Bank of Cal., 649 F.2d 691, 695 (9th Cir.1981) (“[A] rule focusing on the date of termination of economic benefits might dissuade an employ*507er from extending benefits to a discharged employee after the employee has ceased working.”); Bonham v. Dresser Indus., 569 F.2d 187, 191-92 (3d Cir.1977) (“[W]e would ... view with disfavor a rule that penalizes a company for giving an employee periodic severance pay or other extended benefits after the relationship has terminated rather than severing all ties when the employee is let go.”).
Id. at 606. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin in Hilmes v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, 147 Wis.2d 48, 433 N.W.2d 251 (Ct.App.1988), emphasized that “[kjeying an ‘occurrence’ of discrimination to a time prior to termination can afford the employee an opportunity to prevent—rather than rectify—wage loss and other harmful effects of the discriminatory practice.” Id. at 254. The Supreme Court of Minnesota determined in Turner v. IDS Financial Services, Inc., 471 N.W.2d 105 (Minn.1991), that the date of notification was the correct measure because at that time the plaintiff “immediately attains a lame duck status and, prior to actual discharge, may well incur employment agency fees and sustain damages for ‘mental anguish and suffering’ ”. Id. at 108.
The last-day-of-employment approach, embraced by the majority for reasons not implicated in the present case, discourages employers from extending employment and other benefits beyond the date of notification, which provides employees a much needed grace period to locate alternative employment; conversely, the date-of-notification approach motivates both the employer and employee to begin conciliation as soon as possible, possibly avoiding wage loss and other harmful effects of the alleged discriminatory decision. The date-of-notification approach also recognizes and compensates for the fact that employees begin to accrue damages, both emotional and financial, from the time that the employer communicates what could be a discriminatory decision.
B.
More importantly, however, I believe that the majority is wrong in rejecting the Supreme Court’s Ricks/Chardon Rule *508because it fits tongue and groove with this Court’s long adherence to the discovery rule, which provides that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff discovers, or through the exercise of due diligence, should have discovered, the injury, damages or potential claim. See Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. at 288, 291-97, 257 A.2d 421, 422-26 (1969). See also Dual Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 383 Md. 151, 167-68, 857 A.2d 1095, 1104 (2004); Bank of N.Y. v. Sheff, 382 Md. 235, 244, 854 A.2d 1269, 1275 (2004); Frederick Rd. Ltd. P’ship v. Brown & Sturm, 360 Md. 76, 95-96, 756 A.2d 963, 973 (2000); Lumsden v. Design Tech Builders, Inc., 358 Md. 435, 442-43, 749 A.2d 796, 800 (2000); Pennwalt Corp. v. Nasios, 314 Md. 433, 452, 550 A.2d 1155, 1165 (1988); Waldman v. Rohrbaugh, 241 Md. 137, 145, 215 A.2d 825, 830 (1966); Hahn v. Claybrook, 130 Md. 179, 187, 100 A. 83, 86 (1917). We adopted the discovery rule because it provides adequate time for diligent plaintiffs to initiate an action while also ensuring fairness to defendants by encouraging the prompt filing of claims, suppressing stale or fraudulent claims, and avoiding inconvenience which may stem from delay. Frederick Rd. Ltd. P’ship, 360 Md. at 94-95, 756 A.2d at 973; Lumsden, 358 Md. at 441-42, 749 A.2d at 799-800; Pennwalt Corp., 314 Md. at 441, 550 A.2d at 1159; Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 296 Md. 656, 665, 464 A.2d 1020, 1026 (1983); Harig v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 284 Md. 70, 75, 394 A.2d 299, 302 (1978); Feldman, 255 Md. at 297, 257 A.2d at 426 (“[T]he ‘discovery rule’ ... gives to the individual exercising reasonable diligence the full benefit of the statutory period in which to file suit, while at the same time protecting the defendant from ‘stale claims,’ as was intended by the statute.”).
The discovery rule has been applied to determine the time of accrual of a plethora of various civil actions. See, e.g., Callahan v. Clemens, 184 Md. 520, 41 A.2d 473 (1945) (involving an action for negligent construction); Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88, 253 A.2d 904 (1969) (applying rule to action *509against civil engineering firm); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219, 289 A.2d 1 (1972) (involving accounting malpractice claim); Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509, 290 A.2d 530 (1972) (applying rule to legal malpractice claim); Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 284 Md. at 70, 394 A.2d at 299 (applying the rule to an action sounding in negligence and strict liability for latent diseases); Lumsden, 358 Md. at 435, 749 A.2d at 796 (involving action for breach of implied statutory warranty); Bank of N.Y., 382 Md. at 235, 854 A.2d at 1269 (applying rule to action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty); Dual Inc., 383 Md. at 151, 857 A.2d at 1104 (involving action for tortious interference with contractual relations). Moreover, in Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, 431 A.2d 677 (1981), we concluded that there was “no valid reason why [the discovery] rule’s sweep should not be applied to prevent an injustice in other types of cases,” and held that the rule was “applicable generally in all [civil] actions.” Id. at 636, 431 A.2d at 680.
In Arroyo v. Board of Education of Howard County, 381 Md. 646, 851 A.2d 576 (2004), we were called upon to determine when a school guidance counselor’s claim against the Howard County Board of Education for wrongful termination began to run—upon notification of his termination, or upon the date of his actual termination. We concluded that, pursuant to Section 10-222(h) of the State Government Article, the employee was required to exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief. Id. at 660, 851 A.2d at 584-85. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for the employee’s claim began to run when the administrative agency made its final determination to terminate him. Id. at 667, 851 A.2d at 589. We explicated that, in measuring when the statute of limitations began to run,
[t]he dispositive issue ... is ascertaining when the plaintiff was put on notice that he may have been injured. It is manifest to this Court, after viewing Hahn and its progeny, that the statute of limitations on petitioner’s civil claim of *510wrongful termination began to run when he knew or reasonably should have known of the claimed wrong done to him, i.e., his dismissal as an employee of the HCPSS.
Id. at 669, 851 A.2d at 590. Thus,
[i]t was the act of the State Board, in its affirmance of the County Board’s decision to terminate petitioner from his employment, that was the final decision of the administrative agency and signified an exhaustion of petitioner’s administrative remedies. It was no later than this point that petitioner’s injury “accrued.” And it was no later than this point that he knew, or should have known of the “injury. ”
Id. at 671, 851 A.2d at 591 (second emphasis added).
Although Arroyo involved an action under the State Government Article, the principles set forth in that case equally apply to the case sub judice. The statute of limitations on Ms. Haas’s claim began to run when she “knew or reasonably should have known of the claimed wrong done to” her, that time being when she was notified by Lockheed Martin that her position was being eliminated.
For these reasons I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and hold that Ms. Haas filed her action in an untimely fashion.
Judge RAKER has authorized me to state that she joins in Part A of this dissenting opinion.

. The lower federal appellate courts have interpreted the Ricks/Chardon rule in termination cases to apply when the employee is notified of his *503or her termination from employment. See Stewart v. Booker T. Washington Ins., 232 F.3d 844 (11th Cir.2000)(statute of limitations begins to run when employee is informed that she is being terminated); Thomas v. Eastman Kodak Co., 183 F.3d 38 (1st Cir.1999) (holding that action for discrimination began to accrue when the employee was notified of lay-off); Joseph v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 171 F.3d 87 (2nd Cir.1999) (stating that action for discriminatory discharge begins to accrue when employee is notified of employer’s discriminatory decision); McCoy v. S.F., City & County, 14 F.3d 28, 29 (9th Cir.1994) (“The touchstone for determining the commencement of the limitations period is notice.”); Lever v. N.W. Univ., 979 F.2d 552 (7th Cir.1992) (holding that action for gender discrimination accrued from time that professor was informed that she would not be given tenure); English v. Whitfield, 858 F.2d 957 (4th Cir.1988) (holding that discrimination claim brought under the Employee Protection Section of the Energy Reorganization Act was time-barred because the action began to accrue upon the employee’s notification of her termination); Janikowski v. Bendix Corp., 823 F.2d 945 (6th Cir.1987) (holding that discrimination claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act began to accrue upon the employee's notification of his termination); Bronze Shields, Inc. v. N.J. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 667 F.2d 1074 (3d Cir.1981) (holding that action for discrimination accrued when the State Civil Service promulgated the eligibility roster for policemen which gave notice to the plaintiffs of the discriminatory decision).

. In this particular case, Haas consulted with her attorney prior to signing the October 9, 2001 layoff notice, made allegations against the company in November 2001, and filed a charge of disability discrimination with the EEOC in March 2002. Haas did not file her lawsuit in Montgomery County Circuit Court until October 22, 2003.