Forster v. State, 426 Md. 565

Forster was Maryland's State Public Defender terminated by a Board of Trustees decision in Aug. 2009 after a year-long dispute over Office operations.
The Board demanded organizational changes, including disbanding divisions and reallocating staff, which Forster claimed were ultra vires, unlawful, and would harm indigent clients.
The Circuit Court dismissed her wrongful discharge claim for failure to state a claim; it did not decide exhaustion of administrative remedies.
On appeal, the court held that Forster failed to exhaust the primary administrative remedy for at-will executive-service employees under Md. State Pers. & Pens. Art. §11-305 and §11-113, so the complaint was barred.
The majority affirmed the Circuit Court’s dismissal without reaching the wrongful-discharge merits; the panel treated exhaustion as a threshold jurisdictional barrier.
Dissenting concurrence argued the exhaustion rule should not govern and that the complaint fails on the merits as wrongful discharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the termination suit is barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies	Forster exhausted none; Board acted ultra vires and unlawful	11-305 requires administrative appeal; she did not appeal	Yes, exhaustion bars the wrongful-discharge claim
Does §11-305 require exhaustion of an administrative remedy for at-will executive-service terminations?	Exhaustion is unnecessary or impractical here	Statute creates specific administrative remedy; must exhaust	Yes, §11-305 requires exhaustion before court action
Did the Board's directives constitute unlawful activity or violation of public policy?	Demands would violate Public Defender Act and policy	Demands were budget-driven management changes, not illegal acts	No clear public-policy violation established at dismissal stage
Is Wilson v. PSC controlling for bias concerns in administrative review?	Bias invalidates review; administrative forum required	Wilson’s constitutional bias exception not applicable here	No; exhaustion required, and no direct constitutional barrier shown in this context

Smack v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 378 Md. 298, 835 A.2d 1175 (Md. 2003) (termination of probationary employee governed by §11-303; §11-106 applies to non-termination discipline)
Wilson v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 389 Md. 27, 882 A.2d 849 (Md. 2005) (constitutional bias exception to exhaustion not applicable here; analyzes misconduct vs. at-will)
Dozier v. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 164 Md.App. 526, 883 A.2d 1029 (Md. Ct. App. 2005) (discusses administrative reference and contested-case mechanics under Md. APA)
Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 316 Md. 603, 561 A.2d 179 (Md. 1989) (public policy against firing for performing public duties; high-level policy considerations)
Adler v. Am. Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31, 432 A.2d 464 (Md. 1981) (public policy exception requires clear, persuasive wrongful discharge facts)
McIntyre v. Guild, 105 Md.App. 332, 659 A.2d 398 (Md. Ct. App. 1995) (pleading standards for wrongful discharge claims; need specifics)