100571 Send to: TENG, FEI MARYLAND UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 501 W FAYETTE ST RM 1102C BALTIMORE, MD 21201-1768 17:49:48

EST

Time of Request: Sunday, September 18, 2011 Client ID/Project Name: Number of Lines: 89 Job Number: 2828:306907855 Research Information

Service: LEXSTAT(R) Feature Print Request: Current Document: 1 Source: Get by LEXSTAT(R) Search Terms: Md. State Gov. Code Ann. 20-1013

Page 1

Annotated Code of Maryland Copyright 2011 by Matthew Bender and Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group All rights reserved. *** Current through chapters of the 2011 Regular Session of the General Assembly that took effect through July 1, 2011 *** *** Annotations through July 14, 2011 *** STATE GOVERNMENT TITLE 20. HUMAN RELATIONS SUBTITLE 10. ENFORCEMENT PART I. IN GENERAL GO TO MARYLAND STATUTES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY Md. STATE GOVERNMENT Code Ann. 20-1013 (2011) 20-1013. Civil action by complainant

(a) In general. -- In addition to the right to make an election under 20-1007 of this subtitle, a complainant may bring a civil action against the respondent alleging an unlawful employment practice, if: (1) the complainant initially filed a timely administrative charge or a complaint under federal, State, or local law alleging an unlawful employment practice by the respondent; (2) at least 180 days have elapsed since the filing of the administrative charge or complaint; and (3) the civil action is filed within 2 years after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. (b) Venue. -- A civil action under this section shall be filed in the circuit court for the county where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. (c) Termination of administrative proceedings. -- The filing of a civil action under this section automatically terminates any proceeding before the Commission based on the underlying administrative complaint and any amendment to the complaint. (d) Remedies. -- If the court finds that an unlawful employment practice occurred, the court may provide the remedies specified in 20-1009(b) of this subtitle. (e) Punitive damages. -(1) In addition to the relief authorized under subsection (d) of this section, the court may award punitive damages, if:

Page 2 Md. STATE GOVERNMENT Code Ann. 20-1013

(i) the respondent is not a governmental unit or political subdivision; and (ii) the court finds that the respondent has engaged in or is engaging in an unlawful employment practice with actual malice. (2) If the court awards punitive damages, the sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded to each complainant under subsection (d) of this section and the amount of punitive damages awarded under this subsection may not exceed the applicable limitation established under 20-1009(b)(3) of this subtitle. (f) Demand for jury trial. -- If a complainant seeks compensatory or punitive damages under this section: (1) any party may demand a trial by jury; and (2) the court may not inform the jury of the limitations on compensatory and punitive damages imposed under 20-1009(b)(3) of this subtitle. (g) Alternative dispute resolution. -- When appropriate and to the extent authorized under law, in a dispute arising under this part, in which the complainant seeks compensatory or punitive damages, the parties are encouraged to use alternative means of dispute resolution, including settlement negotiations or mediation. HISTORY: An. Code 1957, art. 49B, 11B; 2009, ch. 120, 2; chs. 56, 57, 121, 367; 2010, ch. 72. NOTES: SPECIAL REVISOR'S NOTE. As enacted by Ch. 120, Acts of 2009, subsections (a) through (c) and (e) through (g) of this section were new language derived without substantive change from former Art. 49B, 11B. However, Ch. 367, Acts of 2009, amended subsections (a) and (b) of this section and Ch. 121, Acts of 2009 amended subsection (e) of this section. As enacted by Ch. 120, Acts of 2009, subsection (d) of this section was new language substituted for former Art. 49B, 11B(e), (f), and (h) for brevity and to avoid repetition. In subsections (a)(3) and (b) of this section, the defined term "discriminatory act" was substituted by Ch. 120 for the former references to the "act of discrimination" for consistency throughout this title. In subsection (b) of this section, the word "shall" was substituted by Ch. 120 for the former word "may" for clarity and accuracy. In subsection (e)(1) of this section, the reference to a "governmental unit" was substituted by Ch. 120 for the former reference to a "government entity" for consistency throughout this title. See General Revisor's Note to title. DEFINED TERMS: "Commission" "Complainant" "County" "Discriminatory act" "Including" "Person" "Respondent" "Unlawful employment practice" 20-101 20-101 1-101 20-101 1-101 1-101 20-101 20-1001

EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS. --Chapters 56 and 57, Acts 2009, effective October 1, 2009, reenacted (d) without change. Chapter 121, Acts 2009, effective October 1, 2009, reenacted (d) without change; added (e)(2) and made related changes.

Page 3 Md. STATE GOVERNMENT Code Ann. 20-1013

Chapter 367, Acts 2009, effective October 1, 2009, substituted "an unlawful employment practice" for "a discriminatory act" or variant throughout (a) and (b). Chapter 72, Acts 2010, enacted April 13, 2010, and effective from date of enactment, substituted "an unlawful employment practice" for "a discriminatory act" in (d). MARYLAND LAW REVIEW. --For note, "Recent Decision: Haas v. Lockheed Martin Corp.: Making the Case for Incorporation of the Discovery Rule into the Limitations Statute Governing Discriminatory Discharge Claims," see 67 Md. L. Rev. 832 (2008). PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION --Employee could not bring a private cause of action for racial discrimination under Article 49B of the Code because the employer's alleged discriminatory conduct occurred in March 2006, and Article 49B, 11B(a) of the Code (now 20-1013 of this subtitle) permitted private rights of action only for causes of action arising on or after October 1, 2007. Butler v. Giant Food, Inc., -- F. Supp. 2d -- (D. Md. May 23, 2008). EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. --Employee's proposed new claim for hostile-environment sexual harassment could not meet the standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) because it was futile; she had not exhausted administrative remedies, as required by ' 20-1004(c)(1) and (a) of this section. Cuffee v. Verizon Communs., Inc., 755 F. Supp. 2d 672 (D. Md. 2010). USER NOTE: For more generally applicable notes, see notes under the first section of this part, subtitle, title, division or article.

100571 ********** Print Completed ********** Time of Request: Sunday, September 18, 2011 Print Number: 2828:306907855 Number of Lines: 89 Number of Pages: 3 17:49:48 EST

Send To:

TENG, FEI MARYLAND UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 501 W FAYETTE ST RM 1102C BALTIMORE, MD 21201-1768