DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions 1975-1976

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions 1975-1976 Maryland Law Review Volume 37 | Issue 1 Article 5 Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions 1975-1976 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Recommended Citation Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions 1975-1976, 37 Md. L. Rev. 61 (1977) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol37/iss1/5 This Recent Decisions is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Survey of Maryland Court of Appeals Decisions 1975-1976 I. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 1. MARYLAND COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS - INVES- TIGATORY AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS - Banach v. State Commis- sion on Human Relations,' State Commission on Human Relations v. Amecom. 2 - Article 49B of the Maryland Annotated Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, or physical or mental handicap, and establishes the Commission on Human Relations, an administrative agency, to enforce the statutory anti-discrimination provisions. 3 The Commission has jurisdiction 4 over alleged discriminatory practices involving public accommodations, 6 7 employment,5 housing, and financing. When an individual believes that he is a victim of discrimination, he may file a complaint with the Commission.8 Moreover, the Commission. itself is authorized to file a complaint in its own name upon receipt of reliable information of a discriminatory practice, provided a preliminary investigation discloses that the filing of a complaint is warranted. 9 Once a complaint is filed, either by an individual or by the Commission, it is referred to the Commission's staff for a "prompt investigation."' 0 The Commission has the power to subpoena witnesses, books, papers, records, and documents relevant for proceedings designed to administer and enforce the anti-discrimination provisions of the statute." If the investigation reveals probable cause for believing that a discriminatory act has been committed, the Commission's staff must attempt to resolve it through "conference, conciliation and persuasion."' 2 In the event that no conciliation agreement can be reached, the respondent is served with notice to appear at a hearing to answer the charges in the complaint.' 3 If the Commission finds 4 at the hearing that the respondent has engaged in a discriminatory act,' the Commission shall issue an order requiring the respondent to cease and 1. 277 Md. 502, 356 A.2d 242 (1976). 2. 278 Md. 120, 360 A.2d 1 (1976). 3. MD. ANN. CODE art. 49B (1972, Cum. Supp. 1976). 4. See id. § 11 (1972). 5. See id. §§ 17, 18, 19, 20 (Cum. Supp. 1976). 6. See id. § 21 (Cum. Supp. 1976). 7. See id. § 23 (Cum. Supp. 1976). 8. Id. § 12(a) (Cum. Supp. 1976). 9. Id. § 12(b) (1972). 10. Id. § 13(a) (1972). 11. Id. § 14(d) (1972). 12. Id. § 13(b) (1972). 13. Id. § 14(a) (Cum. Supp. 1976). 14. Id. § 14(e) (1972). (61) MARYLAND LAW REVIEW [VOL. 37 desist from the discriminatory act and "to take such affirmative action as will effectuate the purposes of the particular subtitle [prohibiting that discrimination]. ' 5 Recent decisions of the Court of Appeals and legislative amendments to article 49B have resulted in a significant expansion of the powers of the Commission on Human Relations. In Banach v. State Commission on Human Relations16 the Court of Appeals considered whether the Commis- sion's subpoena powers extended to preliminary investigations. The Commission had attempted to obtain information regarding employment practices from the A.S. Abell Company, publisher of the Baltimore Sun newspapers, pursuant to section 12(b), which requires a preliminary investigation before the Commission may issue a colnplaint in its own name.17 After Banach, the personnel manager, refused to provide the Commission with the requested information, the Commission issued a subpoena duces tecum directing him to appear with the desired records. 18 When Banach failed to produce the records, the Commission obtained enforcement of the subpoena in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. 19 The Court of Appeals granted certiorari prior to consideration of Banach's 2° appeal by the Court of Special Appeals. Banach contended that section 14(d) did not give the Commission the power to issue subpoenas in connection with a section 12(b) preliminary investigation, arguing, instead, that subpoena power attends only to the prompt investigation mandated by section 13 and to the section 14 hearing.21 In analyzing the language of the statute authorizing the Commission to issue subpoenas, the Court of Appeals found the use of the word "proceedings" in section 14(d) to be significant,22 noting that this term is one of broad scope which encompasses the investigatory as well as the adjudicatory process. 23 Reasoning also that the General Assembly would not 15. Id. If, on the other hand, it is determined that the respondent has not committed the alleged discriminatory act, the Commission shall issue an order dismissing the complaint. Id. § 14(f) (1972). The statute makes the filing of an unfounded and malicious complaint a misdemeanor. Id. § 15(b) (1972). 16. 277 Md. 502, 356 A.2d 242 (1976). 17. Section 12(b) provides: Whenever the Commission has received reliable information from any individual or individuals that any person has been engaged or is engaged in any discriminatory practice within the scope of this article, and after a preliminary investigation by the Commission's staff authorized by the chairman or vice-chairman it is satisfied that said information warrants the filing of a complaint, the Commission, on its own motion, and by action of not less than four commissioners, may issue a complaint in its name in the same manner as if the complaint has been filed by an individual. MD. ANN. CODE art. 49B, § 12(b) (1972). 18. 277 Md. at 505, 356 A.2d at 245. 19. Id. at 504, 356 A.2d at 244. 20. Id. 21. Id. at 506, 356 A.2d at 245-46. 22. Id. at 509, 356 A.2d at 247. 23. Id. at 509-10, 356 A.2d at 247; see 1 K. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 3.01, at 159-60 (1958). 1977] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW require the Commission to conduct a preliminary investigation yet deny it the necessary tools with which to investigate,24 the court concluded, over the dissent of Chief Judge Murphy, 25 that the Commission has the power to issue subpoenas in connection with a section 12(b) preliminary investiga- 26 tion. A more significant problem is that of fashioning an appropriate remedy for the victim of discrimination. The Court of Appeals first considered the remedies provided by article 49B in the 1974 case of Gutwein v. Easton Publishing Co.27 Following discharge by Easton Publishing Co. from his employment as a newspaper reporter, Paul Gutwein, a white male, filed a complaint with the Human Relations Commission, alleging that his employment had been terminated because Easton had discovered that his fiancee was black. 28 After investigation and a hearing, the Commission concluded that Gutwein's allegation was true and determined that the discharge constituted a violation of article 49B, section 19(a), which makes discharge of an individual because of his race an unlawful employment practice. 29 On the basis of this determination, the Commission ordered Easton to pay the complainant compensatory damages for lost pay and 24. 277 Md. at 512, 356 A.2d at 249. 25. Chief Judge Murphy focused mainly on the structure of article 49B. Id. at 517-20, 356 A.2d at 251-54. Because § 13 requires the Commission to refer any complaint to the staff for an investigation, a complaint filed by the Commission itself after a § 12(b) investigation would undergo a second investigation, with each investigation being subject to subpoena powers. Chief Judge Murphy asserted that the majority's interpretation therefore results in a duplication of procedures, rendering the § 13 investigation "nugatory and duplicitous." Id. at 519, 356 A.2d at 253. But even with accompanying subpoena powers, there is no reason to expect that a § 12(b) preliminary investigation will be as extensive as a § 13 investigation. The second investigatory procedure would be duplicitous only to the extent that the Commission sought the same information. 26. 277 Md. at 512-13, 356 A.2d at 249. In Solely v. State Comm'n on Human Relations, 277 Md. 521, 356 A.2d 254 (1976), a companion case to Banach, the Court of Appeals held that the Commission clearly has the authority to issue subpoenas pursuant to a § 13 investigation. Id. at 525, 356 A.2d at 257. More recently, the Court of Appeals held that the Commission has authority to investigate discriminatory employment practices allegedly committed by public agencies of the state's political subdivisions. State Comm'n on Human Relations v. Mayor of Baltimore, 280 Md. 35, 371 A.2d 645 (1977). Additionally, the General Assembly has brought state agencies within the ambit of article 49B. See ch. 706,1977 Md. Laws. 27. 272 Md. 563, 325 A.2d 740 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 991 (1975). 28. Id. at 565, 325 A.2d at 741. 29. Section 19(a) provides: (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer: (1) to fail or to refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, or physical or mental handicap unrelated in nature so as to reasonably preclude the performance of the employment ...
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Circuit Court for Dorchester County Case No.: 09-C-16-023640 UNREPORTED
    Circuit Court for Dorchester County Case No.: 09-C-16-023640 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 449 September Term, 2018 ______________________________________ MARGARET FLEISHELL v. MARK RITCHIE HOWARD ______________________________________ Graeff, Shaw Geter, Salmon, James P. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Salmon, J. ______________________________________ Filed: May 3, 2019 * This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104. —Unreported Opinion— On Memorial Day in 2015, Margaret Fleishell, the appellant, and Mark Howard, the appellee, were involved in a T-bone collision in an intersection near Denton, Maryland. Fleishell brought a negligence action against Howard in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County alleging that, under the Boulevard Rule, she was the favored driver and he had failed to yield the right of way to her. She further alleged that Howard’s failure to yield caused the collision. Mr. Howard, in turn, contended that Fleishell’s contributory negligence was a cause of the accident. At the close of discovery, Fleishell moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of negligence and contributory negligence. Following a hearing, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Fleishell on the issue of Howard’s primary negligence, but denied the motion on the issue of Fleishell’s contributory negligence. The issues of Fleishell’s negligence and her damages were tried by a jury. Fleishell’s motions for judgment on the issue of contributory negligence were denied at the close of her case and at the close of all the evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesquite Local News
    COMMUNIITY Desert Dogs have rough week MESQUITE Page 1B OPINION Just say no to annual legislative LOCAL NEWS sessions THE WEEK OF APRIL 4, 2019 Vol. 15, No. 25 Page 4A WATER DISTRICT UP, UP AND AWAY Developers given window to request permit transfer By Linda Faas MLN The Virgin Valley Water District board took action April 2 to allow a temporary window of opportunity for active devel- opers who have paid development fees that they had previously been unable to use due to amended lot maps or transfer to another property according to VVWD regulations. Virgin Valley Water District has tak- en a number of steps in recent years to bring order and standard practices to its overall regulations for land developers, providing a more stable environment for budgeting and delivery of water service. Teri Nehrenz VVWD is the sole supplier of culinary Lance Bame and Cambria Olsen take flight with EAA Pilot and Young Eagle Chapter 765 Event Coordinator, David Amspok- water within its boundaries. Accurate er during the Young Eagles Free airplane rides that took place on March 30 at the Mesquite Airport. control of permitted “will-serve” obliga- tions it grants to developers wishing to tap into the district’s culinary water sys- tem is essential for planning and paying for expansion of water supply and infra- They came, they saw, they flew structure. Equivalent development unit fees are By Teri Nehrenz The planes that were brought up from The flight lasted between 15 and 20 levied on developers when they seek MLN Kingman were: A Cessna 172, Cirrus minutes, but most will remember this permission to build at a specific proper- Sr22, Grumnan Tiger, Cessna 182 and experience for the rest of their lives.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Criminal Law Newsletter a Publication of the Criminal Justice Section of the New York State Bar Association
    NYSBA WINTER 2018 | VOL. 16 | NO. 1 New York Criminal Law Newsletter A publication of the Criminal Justice Section of the New York State Bar Association In This Issue: n New Criminal Justice Legislation n Cell Phone Search and Seizure n Fraud Case Disclaimers n The REDEEM Act and Sealing n Photos from Nassau County Bar Event Get Ready for the 2018 Young Lawyers Section’s Trial Academy The Criminal Justice Section is pleased to co-sponsor the NYSBA Young Lawyers Section’s annual Trial Academy, and offer a scholarship to attend the Academy. The Young Lawyers Section Trial Acad- emy is the New York State Bar Association’s only comprehensive trial training program. This intensive five-day trial techniques and advocacy program is geared toward young and new lawyers—teaching, advancing, and improving the quality of their experience in the courtroom, in order to benefit their ca- reers and their client’s interests. The Trial Academy will be held Wednesday, April 4, through Sunday, April 8, 2018. Participating in the Trial Academy is the perfect opportunity to gain critically important trial ex- perience outside of the courtroom. Participants attend a morning lecture on an aspect of a trial and spend the afternoons in small groups with their designated team leader demonstrating the day’s trial skill from a previously provided fact pattern. One-on-one critiques will be provided by a rotating fac- ulty made up of NYSBA leadership and leading litigators, advocates and judges from every region of New York. The Trial Academy is open to any attorney wishing to learn or improve upon their trial skills and provides a unique opportunity for participants to have a meaningful experience which extends be- yond a typical classroom setting.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\COA Users\COAPOOL\85Hn08.Wpd
    John Grady, et al. v. Darin Donell Brown No. 85, September Term, 2008. NEGLIGENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW - BOULEVARD RULE Respondent was not negligent as a matter of law in the motor tort suit brought by petitioners, despite entering on the roadway upon which petitioner Grady, the favored driver, traveled, because he stopped and yielded the right-of-way to petitioner. The Circuit Court properly applied the Boulevard Rule and did not err in denying petitioners’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-05-008226 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 85 September Term, 2008 John Grady, et al. v. Darin Donell Brown Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Raker, Irma S. (Retired, specially assigned) Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, specially assigned) JJ. Opinion by Raker, J. Bell, C.J., and Harrrell and Wilner, JJ. Dissent. Filed: April 7, 2009 This motor tort case involves the Boulevard Rule. We must decide whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore City erred in denying petitioners’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict on the grounds that, based on the Boulevard Rule, respondent’s operation of his vehicle was negligent as a matter of law. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, as shall we. I. This case arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on the morning of March 16, 2005, on Falkirk Road near the intersection of Gittings Avenue in Baltimore City. Petitioner Grady and his wife, Jacqueline Grady, filed an action sounding in negligence against respondent Brown and his father, Vern Milton Brown.1 Grady was operating his motorcycle on the favored highway, Falkirk Road, and Brown was operating a motor vehicle on the unfavored highway, an alley leading into Falkirk.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MARYLAND BOULEVARD RULE: a TIME for CHANGE Maryland's Boulevard Rule Has Survived Frequent Challenge and the Apparent Harshness of Its Results in Recent Cases
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 6 Article 3 Issue 2 Spring 1977 1977 Notes and Comments: The aM ryland Boulevard Rule: A Time for Change John William Debelius III University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Debelius, John William III (1977) "Notes and Comments: The aM ryland Boulevard Rule: A Time for Change," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 6: Iss. 2, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol6/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS THE MARYLAND BOULEVARD RULE: A TIME FOR CHANGE Maryland's boulevard rule has survived frequent challenge and the apparent harshness of its results in recent cases. The author examines the development and application of the rule and questions both the historical bases and judicial justifications for the rule's modern viability. I. INTRODUCTION Several Maryland decisions in the past few years point once again to the need for a critical re-evaluation of the Maryland boulevard rule. 1 The stream of cases trying unsuccessfully to carve exceptions into the rule continues, and while inequity is no stranger to the application of this curious rule, the recent trend toward absoluteness in its interpretation by the courts is disturbing.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Court Notes That Defendant Evans Has Filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment
    Case 8:04-cv-01005-AW Document 41 Filed 08/03/05 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION DAVID B. MARCHISILLO, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. AW-04-1005 v. KENNETH LOUIS DAVIS, and CORY DWIGHT EVANS, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff David B. Marchisillo (“Plaintiff” or “Marchisillo”) bring this diversity action against Defendants Kenneth Louis Davis (“Davis”) and Cory Dwight Evans (“Evans”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging a sole claim of negligence stemming from personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff in an automobile accident. Currently before the Court are the following motions: Davis’s Motion for Summary Judgment [29], Evans’s Motion for Summary Judgment [33], and Davis’s Motion to Strike Affidavit [39]. The Court has reviewed the pleadings and applicable law and has determined that a hearing is unnecessary. See Local Rule 105(6) (D. Md. 2004). For the following reasons, both Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and Defendant Davis’s Motion to Strike are denied.1 FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken in the light most favorable to the non-movant. On April 3, 2001, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Marchisillo and his son were traveling in Marchisillo’s van, driving his son home 1 The Court notes that Defendant Evans has filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. Because the substance of that motion appears to be duplicative of Evans’s prior Motion for Summary Judgment, the Amended Motion is similarly denied. Case 8:04-cv-01005-AW Document 41 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 11 to buy some food.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript, Thus
    1 1 BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE FINANCE AND ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEES 2 ---------------------------------------------------- 3 JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING 4 In the Matter of the 2018-2019 EXECUTIVE BUDGET 5 ON TRANSPORTATION 6 ---------------------------------------------------- 7 Hearing Room B 8 Legislative Office Building Albany, New York 9 January 25, 2018 10 9:37 a.m. 11 12 PRESIDING: 13 Senator Catharine M. Young Chair, Senate Finance Committee 14 Assemblywoman Helene E. Weinstein 15 Chair, Assembly Ways & Means Committee 16 PRESENT: 17 Senator Liz Krueger Senate Finance Committee (RM) 18 Assemblyman Robert Oaks 19 Assembly Ways & Means Committee (RM) 20 Senator Diane J. Savino Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee 21 Assemblyman David Gantt 22 Chair, Assembly Committee on Transportation 23 24 2 1 2018-2019 Executive Budget Transportation 2 1-25-18 3 PRESENT: (Continued) 4 Assemblywoman Amy Paulin Chair, Assembly Committee on Corporations, 5 Authorities & Commissions 6 Assemblyman Phil Steck 7 Assemblyman James Skoufis 8 Senator Timothy Kennedy 9 Assemblyman Steven Otis 10 Senator Martin Malave Dilan 11 Assemblywoman Vivian E. Cook 12 Assemblywoman Nily Rozic 13 Assemblyman David G. McDonough 14 Senator Gustavo Rivera 15 Assemblywoman Pamela J. Hunter 16 Assemblywoman Alicia Hyndman 17 Senator Leroy Comrie 18 Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis 19 Senator Todd Kaminsky 20 Assemblyman Robert C. Carroll 21 Assemblywoman Earlene Hooper 22 Assemblyman Kevin Byrne 23 Assemblyman John T. McDonald III 24 Assemblywoman Jaime R. Williams 3 1 2018-2019 Executive Budget Transportation 2 1-25-18 3 PRESENT: (Continued) 4 Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon 5 Assemblyman David Buchwald 6 Assemblyman Félix W. Ortiz 7 8 LIST OF SPEAKERS 9 STATEMENT QUESTIONS 10 Joseph J.
    [Show full text]
  • Oran's Dictionary of The
    ORAN’S DICTIONARY OF THE LAW 3rd Edition Daniel Oran, J.D. Mark Tosti, J.D. Contributing Author Africa • Australia • Canada • Denmark • Japan • Mexico • New Zealand • Philippines • Puerto Rico • Singapore • Spain United Kingdom • United States NOTICE TO THE READER Publisher does not warrant or guarantee any of the products described herein or perform any independent analysis in connection with any of the product information contained herein. Publisher does not assume, and expressly disclaims, any obligation to obtain and include information other than that provided to it by the manufacturer. The reader is notified that this text is an educational tool, not a practice book. Since the law is in constant change, no rule or statement of law in this book should be relied upon for any service to any client. The reader should always refer to standard legal sources for the current rule or law. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of the appropriate professional should be sought. The Publisher makes no representation or warranties of any kind, including but not limited to, the warranties of fitness for particular purpose or merchantability, nor are any such representations implied with respect to the material set forth herein, and the publisher takes no responsibility with respect to such material. The publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material. West Legal Studies Staff: Business Unit Director: Susan Simpfenderfer Executive Acquisitions Editor: Marlene McHugh Pratt Acquisitions Editor: Joan Gill Editorial Assistant: Lisa Flatley Executive Marketing Manager: Donna Lewis Channel Manager: Nigar Hale Executive Production Manager: Wendy Troeger Production Editor: Betty L.
    [Show full text]