A.C. v. Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, 158 A.3d 1140

Background

In May 2012 A.C., an Assistant Attorney General appointed as a "special appointment," was terminated and in October 2012 filed a race-discrimination and retaliation charge with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (the Commission), dually filed with EEOC.
In October 2015 the Commission found "no probable cause" and denied reconsideration in November 2015; the EEOC conducted a "substantial weight" review and on December 15, 2015 upheld the Commission and issued a Notice of Right to Sue.
Instead of suing in federal court within 90 days, A.C. filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of the Commission’s denial of reconsideration on December 4, 2015.
The Commission initially said it would not participate but later filed a motion to dismiss; the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) also moved to dismiss; the circuit court granted both motions and denied A.C.’s motion to amend to add a mandamus claim.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed: the circuit court lacked statutory authority to review the Commission’s denial of reconsideration for matters within EEOC jurisdiction; the late motions to dismiss were properly considered; the Commission’s investigative file need not be transmitted; and mandamus relief was not warranted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (A.C.)	Defendant's Argument (Commission/OAG)	Held
1. Whether circuit court had authority to hear petition for judicial review of Commission denial of reconsideration	A.C. argued the court could review the Commission’s denial of reconsideration	Commission/OAG argued Title 20 excludes matters within EEOC jurisdiction from being appealable to circuit court	Court held no statutory basis for judicial review here; denial not appealable because EEOC had jurisdiction
2. Whether Commission and OAG could file motions to dismiss after 30 days of notice	A.C. argued Commission waived right to oppose by saying it would not participate and that late responses should be rejected	Defendants argued they were proper respondents and Rule 7-204 grants court discretion to accept late responses	Court held defendants had standing and the court did not err in considering late motions
3. Whether Commission had to transmit its investigative file to circuit court	A.C. claimed Rule 7-206 and Rule 7-206(d) required transmission	Commission invoked statutory confidentiality of investigatory files (SG §20-1101 and COMAR) and argued no public hearing or proper review triggered disclosure	Court held no transmission required because the court lacked authority to entertain the petition and files remain confidential absent a public hearing or statutory exception
4. Whether court erred denying leave to amend to seek writ of mandamus against OAG to compel SP §11-106 procedures	A.C. sought mandamus to compel pre-termination disciplinary procedures	OAG argued A.C., a specially appointed at-will employee, had no clear entitlement to §11-106 protections and failed to timely pursue internal appeals	Court held mandamus inappropriate: A.C. lacked clear entitlement to requested procedures and failed to timely appeal termination; denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Gasper v. Ruffin Hotel Corp. of Maryland, 183 Md. App. 211 (standard for reviewing motion to dismiss) (explains assuming truth of well-pleaded facts)
Adamson v. Corr. Med. Servs., 359 Md. 238 (review standards for motions to dismiss)
Falls Road Community Ass’n v. Baltimore Cnty., 437 Md. 115 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Oltman v. Maryland State Bd. of Physicians, 182 Md. App. 65 (administrative board may challenge petitioner’s right to judicial review)
Harvey v. Marshall, 389 Md. 243 (judicial review of administrative action generally requires statutory grant)
Maryland Comm’n on Human Relations v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co., 296 Md. 46 (final administrative orders required for court review)
Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Anderson, 395 Md. 172 (test for final, appealable administrative order)
Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (EEOC authority and Right-to-Sue practice under Title VII)
Schmerling v. Injured Workers’ Fund, 368 Md. 434 (trial court discretion on motions to amend pleadings)
Toomey v. Gomeringer, 235 Md. 456 (procedural rules are not inflexible where no prejudice shown)
Smack v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 378 Md. 298 (reconciling general and specific provisions of personnel statutes)
Forster v. Office of Pub. Defender, 426 Md. 565 (scope of SP protections for specially appointed at-will employees)