Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was appointed the Police Commissioner of Baltimore City by the Mayor. Petitioner and the Mayor entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that addressed the terms and conditions of Petitioner's employment, including his removal as Commissioner. The Mayor and City Council (Respondents) later relieved Petitioner of his command. Petitioner filed an amended complaint against Respondents seeking reinstatement and money damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Respondents. The intermediate appellate court reversed, holding that the Mayor did not have the authority to remove a Police Commissioner pursuant to a contract providing for removal without cause, and therefore, the removal provisions of the MOU were invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for writ of mandamus or motion for injunction or reinstatement. The circuit court denied the motion and granted summary judgment to Respondents. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because this Court did not decide the merits of Petitioner's claims for reinstatement and monetary damages, Petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement or judgment as a matter of law; and (2) the court of special appeals did not err in granting Respondents' summary judgment motion and denying Petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment. View "Clark v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

CareFirst, Inc., a nonstock, nonprofit Maryland corporation, is a holding company with two subsidiaries that provides health insurance for millions of Maryland residents. State law confers broad authority on the Maryland Insurance Commissioner to oversee its operation and adherence to its mission. This case arose from the termination of Leon Kaplan, a former executive of CareFirst. CareFirst declined to pay part of the post-termination compensation set forth in Kaplan's employment contract, reasoning that the compensation was not for "work actually performed," as that standard had been interpreted by the Commissioner. The Commissioner affirmed the decision not to pay the benefits, concluding that the payments would violate Md. Code Ann. Ins. 14-139. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Commissioner's determination was not preempted by ERISA; (2) the Commissioner's construction of the insurance code was legally correct; and (3) there was substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's determination in this case. View "Md. Ins. Comm'r. v. Kaplan" on Justia Law

The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) fired Plaintiff, a bus operator that suffered from a heart condition. MTA terminated Plaintiff's employment for failing to meet the standard adopted by the State establishing that an individual is not qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that individual suffers from certain cardiovascular diseases. The standard had previously been adopted by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). Plaintiff brought this action in the circuit court, alleging that the MTA violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After a jury trial, MTA was found guilty of discrimination. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiff's inability, because of his heart condition, to meet the DOT standards rendered him unqualified as a matter of law for an MTA bus operator position. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as a matter of law, the MTA's use of the federally-created qualification standard governing drivers suffering from cardiovascular disease satisfied the ADA's requirements of being "job-related" and of "business necessity" and that "performance cannot be accomplished by reasonable accommodation"; and (2) because Plaintiff failed to meet this properly imposed qualification standard, he was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA. View "Zei v. Md. Transit Admin." on Justia Law

Railroad employee (Employee) filed suit against his employer (Railroad) under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), alleging that Railroad was negligent in its use of large ballast rather than small ballast in areas where Employee worked. Employee claimed that walking on the large ballast caused him to develop osteoarthritis in both knees. A jury found Railroad seventy percent negligent and Employee twenty percent negligent and awarded Employee $1,246,000 for his injuries. The court of special appeals affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether and when a railroad employee's negligence action under FELA may be precluded by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a negligence action alleging the improper use of ballast will be precluded only to the extent to which the ballast performs a track-support function, and under such circumstances, the railroad should bear the burden of proving the facts that support preclusion; and (2) here, Employee's FELA claim was not precluded by FRSA because Railroad failed to prove that the ballast complained of performed a track-support function. View "CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pitts" on Justia Law

Insured was injured in an accident. Insured's policy with Insurer included uninsured motorist (UM) bodily injury coverage and personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. Insured's Employer's third-party workers' compensation (WC) administrator asserted a subrogation right against any PIP or UM recovery by Insured. At issue in this case was the correct interpretation of Md. Code Ins. 19-513. The district court asked the Court of Appeals to determine whether section 19-513(e) requires an insurance company to deduct WC benefits payable to an insured for UM and PIP when the insured has not reimbursed its provider and the insured intends to reimburse the WC provider in the future. The Court of Appeals held (1) under the plain meaning of section 19-513(e), an insured's benefits payable under UM and PIP coverage shall be reduced to the extent that the insured recovered benefits under WC and the WC provider has not been reimbursed; and (2) if the applicable workers' compensation law treats "write-downs" of medical bills as WC benefits, and the WC benefits have not been reimbursed, then the insurer shall deduct those benefits, calculated as discounts, from its benefits payable to the insured under section 19-513(e). View "Travco Ins. Co. v. Williams" on Justia Law

Decedent worked as a firefighter for Baltimore City. After Decedent died, his widow, Petitioner, began receiving survivorship benefits from Decedent's pension. Petitioner later filed a dependent's claim for death benefits under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act. The dispute at the hearing concerned what provision of the Act was applicable to Petitioner's claim. The City argued that Md. Code Lab. & Empl. 9-610, which reduces compensation death benefits by the amount of pension benefits, should apply. Petitioner argued that Md. Code Lab. & Empl. 9-503(e), which allows firefighters' dependents to collect both pension and workers' compensation up to the amount of what had been the firefighter's weekly salary, should apply. Petitioner's claim was pending when section 9-503(e) was amended to include dependents in its scope of coverage. The Workers' Compensation Commission determined that section 9-503(e) governed the claim and awarded Petitioner benefits. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, ruling that Petitioner had no preexisting right to dual benefits prior to the statute's amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the amendments involved a substantive change in the law that precluded it from applying retroactively to pending cases. View "Johnson v. Baltimore" on Justia Law

Respondent was injured while performing his job as a school police officer in Baltimore City. After the City terminated his employment, Respondent applied for line-of-duty disability retirement. A hearing examiner denied Respondent's application, concluding that Respondent did not satisfy the eligibility requirements of Baltimore, Md., Code 22, 9(j), which requires a claimant to prove he sustained at least a fifty percent total impairment as the direct result of a line-of-duty accident. The hearing examiner concluded that Respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements because the impairment to Respondent's back was not independent of all other causes, reasoning that Respondent's degenerative disc disease contributed to the disability of his back. The circuit court reversed, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Respondent's preexisting condition did not preclude him from qualifying for line-of-duty disability retirement because he proved that fifty percent of his total level of disability was the direct result of the injury he sustained while performing in the line of duty. View "Employees' Ret. Sys. of City of Baltimore v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

A collective-bargaining agreement between Baltimore County and Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 4 (FOP) contained an arbitration clause and a retiree health-insurance provision. FOP believed the provision locked in place the health-insurance subsidy as it existed at the time of an officer's retirement. After the agreement expired and the County decreased the health-insurance subsidy, FOP initiated arbitration. The County protested, arguing (1) it had no duty to arbitrate because the collective-bargaining agreement had expired, and (2) the health-insurance subsidy was not locked in place but was subject to change from year to year. FOP was successful in arbitration and on appeal before the circuit court, but the court of special appeals vacated the arbitration award. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) an arbitration clause may survive the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement when it concerns rights that vested during the life of the agreement; and (2) when deciding the issue of arbitrability requires interpretation of the underlying agreement and consideration of the merits of the dispute, the issue of arbitrability should initially be determined by the arbitrator. View "Baltimore County Fraternal Order of Police Lodge v. Baltimore County" on Justia Law

In 2002, county voters adopted an amendment to the county charter relating to the resolution by binding arbitration of collective bargaining impasses with the county's law enforcement employees and uniformed firefighters. In 2003, the county council adopted an ordinance implementing that charter provision. In 2011, the county council amended the 2003 ordinance to provide that binding arbitration did not require the council to appropriate funds or enact legislation necessary to implement a final written award in arbitration. An uncodified section of the 2011 council bill also provided that, if any part of the 2011 ordinance were held invalid, the entire county code section enacted by the 2003 ordinance, as amended through the 2011 ordinance, would be deemed repealed by operation of law, with the result that impasses would be addressed by a code section that did not authorize binding arbitration. Petitioners sought a declaratory judgment that the 2011 ordinance violated the 2002 charter amendment. The circuit court held the 2002 charter amendment violated the Maryland Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the 2002 charter amendment bound the county council; and (2) portions of the 2011 ordinance, as well as its uncodified section 3, violated the charter and were invalid. Remanded. View "Atkinson v. Anne Arundel County" on Justia Law

Respondent sustained six injuries while playing for the Washington Redskins on four separate occasions. Consequently, Respondent filed with the Maryland Workers Compensation Commission six separate claims against his employer, the Washington Redskins (Petitioner). The Commission denied five of Respondent's claims on the ground that he was not a "covered employee" because he was working for the Redskins outside of the State when he sustained the injuries underlying the claims. The circuit court affirmed. The court of special appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a football player employed by the Washington Redskins is a "covered employee," and therefore entitled to avail himself of Maryland's workers' compensation laws, when injured while practicing and playing football outside of Maryland. View "Pro-Football, Inc. v. McCants" on Justia Law