Maryland Whistleblower Protections

5-301: “This subtitle applies to all employees and State employees who are applicants for positions in the Executive Branch of State government, including a unit with an independent personnel system.”

• 5-302(b): This subtitle does not prohibit a personnel action that would have been taken regardless of a disclosure of information.
• 5-305: Subject to the limitations of 5-306 of this subtitle, a supervisor, appointing authority, or the head of a principal unit may not take or refuse to take any personnel action as a reprisal against an employee who:

(1) discloses information that the employee reasonably believes evidences:

(i) an abuse of authority, gross mismanagement, or gross waste of money;

(ii) a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or

(iii) a violation of law; or

(2) following a disclosure under item (1) of this section seeks a remedy provided under this subtitle or any other                 law or policy governing the employee’s unit.

• 5-306: Section 5-305of this subtitle applies to a disclosure that is specifically prohibited by law only if that disclosure is made exclusively to the Attorney General in the manner allowed in  5-313 of this subtitle.

• 5-309(e): As a remedial action for a violation of 5-305 of this subtitle, the Secretary or designee may:

(1) order the removal of any related detrimental information from the complainant’s State personnel records;

(2) require the head of the principal unit to:

(i) hire, promote, or reinstate the complainant or end the complainant’s suspension from employment;

(ii) award the complainant back pay to the day of the violation;

(iii) grant the complainant leave or seniority;

(iv) take appropriate disciplinary action against any individual who caused the violation; and

(v) take any other remedial action consistent with the purposes of this subtitle.

• 5-310(d): A complainant who prevails at a hearing may be awarded any appropriate relief, including:

(1) any remedial action allowed under § 5-309(e) of this subtitle; and

(2) costs of litigation and reasonable attorney’s fees.

MD Code, Health – General, § 2-601

2-607: Employee, contractor, or grantee

2-607(a): A person may not take a retaliatory action against an employee, contractor, or grantee because the employee, contractor, or grantee:

(1) Acts lawfully in furtherance of an action filed under this subtitle, including an investigation for, initiation of,                 testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed under this subtitle;

(2) Discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy, or practice of the person            that the employee, contractor, or grantee reasonably believes is in violation of § 2-602(a) of this subtitle or a                        regulation adopted under this subtitle;

(3) Provides information to, or testifies before, a public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into a           violation of § 2-602(a) of this subtitle or a regulation adopted under this subtitle that is allegedly or actually                         committed by the person; or

(4) Objects to or refuses to participate in any activity, policy, or practice that the employee, contractor, or grantee              reasonably believes is in violation of § 2-602(a) of this subtitle or a regulation adopted under this subtitle.

2-607(b):

(1) An employee, contractor, or grantee may file a civil action against a person other than a supervisor in State government, an appointing authority in State government, or the head of a principal unit in State government if the person takes a retaliatory action against the employee, contractor, or grantee in violation of subsection (a) of this section.

(2) The employee, contractor, or grantee may seek in the civil action:

(i) An injunction to restrain a continuing violation of subsection (a) of this section;

(ii) Reinstatement to the same seniority status held before the retaliatory action;

(iii) Reinstatement of full fringe benefits and seniority rights;

(iv) Two times the amount of lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, including any interest accumulated;

(v) Payment by the person of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees;

(vi) Punitive damages;

(vii) An assessment of a civil penalty:

1. Not exceeding $1,000 for the first violation; and
2. Not exceeding $5,000 for each subsequent violation; and

(viii) Any other relief necessary to make the employee, contractor, or grantee whole.

(3) The remedies provided under this section do not diminish or affect the rights, privileges, or remedies available to the employee, contractor, or grantee under:

(i) Any other federal or State statute or regulation; or

(ii) Any collective bargaining agreement or employee contract

Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-601, et seq.

Employees, job applicants, and members of labor organizations. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-606

Opposing unlawful discrimination or retaliation, as well as making a charge of discrimination, testifying, and assisting or participating in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing relating to discrimination or unlawful retaliation as prohibited by the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act.

The remedies available to individuals under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act are similar to those available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and include reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

MD Code, Health Occupations, § 1-501-506

Any individual licensed or certified by a board under the MD Health Occupations article who works for an employer.

This does not include state employees.

An employee who discloses, threatens to disclose, refuses to participate in a practice, or participates in an investigation regarding an employer’s action, practice, or policy that the employee has a reasonable good faith belief is a violation of a law, rule, or regulation that poses a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety is protected.

The employee must first have either reported the believed violation to the employer through the supervisor, administrator, or corporate compliance outlet, to allow the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct.

Injunctive relief, reinstatement to same or equivalent position with full benefits and seniority, removal of adverse personnel records based on protected activity, back pay, reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.

The court can assess attorney’s fees and expenses against the employee if the suit is brought in bad faith or without basis in law or fact.

MD Code, State Finance and Procurement, § 11-301-306

An employee of a person who enters into a procurement contract to provide supplies or services to the state.

An employee of an agent, contractor, or subcontractor of a person who enters into a procurement contract to provide supplies or services to the state.

An employee who discloses information that the employee reasonably believes evidences that the employer is engaged actions or practices, or refuses to participate in an activity, practice, or policy, that is: (1) an abuse of authority; (2) a gross mismanagement; (3) a gross waste of money; (4) a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety; or (5) a violation of law.

This statute protects employees of state contractors (and subcontractors) from retaliation if the employee discloses information about, or refuses to participate in, the employer’s activity, practice, or policy, of abuse, mismanagement, waste, endangering the public, or breaking the law.

Yes

Yes

• Wholey v. Sears Roebuck, 370 Md. 38, 803 A.2d 482 (Md. 2002).
• Molesworth v. Brandon,341 Md. 621, 672 A.2d 608 (Md. 1996).
• Finch v. Holladay–Tyler Printing, Inc.,322 Md. 197, 202, 586 A.2d 1275, 1278 (Md. 1991).
• DeBleecker v. Montgomery County,292 Md. 498, 438 A.2d 1348 (Md. 1982).
• Kessler v. Equity Management, Inc.,82 Md.App. 577, 572 A.2d 1144 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1990).
• Watson v. Peoples Sec. Life Ins. Co., 588 A.2d 760 (Md. 1991).
• Bleich v. Florence Crittenton Svrvs., 632 A.2d 463 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993).
• Insignia Residential Corp. v. Ashton, 755 A.2d 1080 (Md. 2000).
• Hoffman v. Baltimore Police Dep’t, 379 F. Supp. 2d 778 (D. MD. 2005).
• Tasciyan v. Medical Numerics, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145197 (D. Md. Oct. 9 2012).

)

• Wholey: Firing an employees who give testimony (either as victim or witness) at an official judicial proceeding, or report a suspected crime to the appropriate law enforcement or judicial officer is against public policy.
• Molesworth: Employees of employer’s with less than 15 employees have an actionable wrongful discharge claim on the basis of sex based discrimination because the policy extends to all employers even if the procedure only applies to employers of 15 or more employees.
  • Note: the FEPA Act Molesworth was discussing has since been repealed.
• Finch: Violation of public policy to discharge an employee solely because the employee filed a workers’ compensation claim.
• DeBleecker: Employee cannot be discharged for exercising constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.
• Kessler: Employee cannot be discharged for refusing to violate a third party’s right to privacy.
• Watson: Employee cannot be fired for filing an assault and battery charge against former supervisor based on alleged sexual overtures toward employee.
• Bleich: Employee cannot be discharged for writing a letter to authorities reporting alleged child abuse and neglect of children.
• Insignia: Cannot discharge employee for refusing a manager’s sexual advances.
• Hoffman: Cannot discharge employee for requesting complaint letters filed against the employee pursuant to the Maryland Public Information Act.
• Tasciyan: Cannot discharge an employee for writing on a self-evaluation form that the employer had not promoted the employee because of the employee’s gender.

• Punitive Damages if employee can show the employer acted with actual malice.
• Back pay, front pay, and other compensatory damages.