Cunningham v. Feinberg
107 A.3d 1194
| Md. | 2015Background
- Feinberg sued C&A and Cunningham in Maryland federal court (District Court, 2012) alleging unpaid wages under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL).
- Feinberg signed a Virginia employment contract calling him an independent contractor with pay terms not fully specified in the contract.
- The District Court dismissed the MWPCL claim, ruling the Virginia contract and lack of Maryland connection barred the claim.
- Feinberg appealed, arguing Himes and related decisions allowed Maryland courts to hear MWPCL claims despite a multistate contract.
- The Circuit Court reversed and remanded for factual development, leaving open whether Feinberg was an employee and the wage dispute’s merits.
- This Court held that the MWPCL may apply despite a Virginia contract, and that lex loci contractus is not automatically controlling here, due to Maryland’s strong public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does lex loci contractus preclude MWPCL claim? | Feinberg argues MWPCL can apply despite Virginia contract (Himes governs). | C&A/Cunningham contend lex loci contractus precludes MWPCL because contract is Virginia. | No automatic preclusion; MWPCL not barred outright by lex loci contractus. |
| Does MWPCL reflect strong Maryland public policy overriding lex loci contractus? | MWPCL embodies strong public policy supporting Maryland remedies. | MWPCL lacks explicit public policy to override contract-law choice; Virginia law should apply. | MWPCL represents strong Maryland public policy; can override lex loci contractus in appropriate cases. |
| What is the proper framework for applying lex loci contractus given no express choice-of-law clause in the contract? | Treat MWPCL as standalone remedial statute applicable in Maryland. | Virginia law governs contract interpretation; MWPCL not applicable. | Lex loci contractus applies to express terms; here, no express terms on wages, so MWPCL can apply; public policy supports Maryland remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- ARTRA Group, Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 338 Md. 560 (Md. 1995) (lex loci contractus with public policy considerations; erosion discussion)
- Ward v. Nationwide Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 328 Md. 240 (Md. 1992) (interpretation means contract provisions; lex loci contractus)
- Himes v. Anderson, 178 Md.App. 504 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008) (MWPCL available in Maryland for Virginia employer under certain facts)
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. G.C. Zarnas & Co., 304 Md. 183 (Md. 1985) (public policy override for contract provisions void as against public policy)
- National Glass, Inc. v. J.C. Penney Properties, Inc., 336 Md. 606 (Md. 1994) (anti-waiver provisions signaling strong public policy)