Foy v. Baltimore City Detention Ctr.
174 A.3d 916
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Foy, a BCDC lieutenant, was found guilty by a Hearing Board of excessive force and other charges; the Board recommended demotion and transfer rather than termination.
- Commissioner Wolfe received the Hearing Board recommendation on November 23, 2015, and decided to seek an increased penalty.
- Wolfe held a penalty-increase meeting on December 9, 2015, but the audio recorder malfunctioned and the meeting was not captured. He notified Foy’s counsel and attempted to reschedule.
- Wolfe memorialized his recollection in a December 10 memorandum to the Secretary, then cancelled a proposed reconvened meeting (scheduled for Dec. 17) and, with Secretary approval, issued a final order terminating Foy on December 16.
- Foy sought judicial review claiming violation of the Correctional Officers’ Bill of Rights (COBR) — specifically failure to satisfy Corr. Servs. §10-910(b)(6)(ii) (allow officer to be heard on the record) within the statutory framework.
- The circuit court found an error of law and remanded to the appointing authority for a new recorded penalty-increase meeting; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and ordered reinstatement of the Hearing Board’s penalty (i.e., vacating the termination) and back pay.
Issues
| Issue | Foy's Argument | BCDC/Wolfe's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s remand order was an appealable final judgment | Remand was a final order under State Gov’t §10-222(h) after judicial review | Remand contemplated further admin proceedings and thus was non-final | Remand was appealable: court reviewed the record and adjudicated the sole legal issue, so order was a final judgment (Milburn/Schultz framework) |
| Whether the 30-day clock in Corr. Servs. §10-910(b)(1) begins on Hearing Board decision or on appointing authority’s receipt | 30 days should run from receipt/acknowledgment by appointing authority | (Defendant argued timing differently at trial; parties largely thought it ran from Board date) | 30 days runs from when appointing authority receives/acknowledges the Hearing Board’s recommendation (Wolfe’s receipt Nov. 23 → deadline Dec. 23) |
| Whether the steps in Corr. Servs. §10-910(b)(6)(i)-(iv) are mandatory or may be satisfied by substantial compliance | Mandatory; appointing authority must strictly follow each step or obtain a waiver | Substantial compliance (memorializing meeting, attempts to reschedule) suffices; inadvertent recorder failure is harmless | Mandatory: (b)(6) requirements are mandatory, not met by substantial compliance; failure to record prejudiced Foy and closed the window to increase penalty absent waiver |
| Remedy when appointing authority increases penalty but fails to comply with §10-910(b)(6) within time | Vacate the increased penalty and reinstate Hearing Board’s recommended sanction (unless waiver) | Remand for a new recorded meeting (curable technical error) | Court reversed circuit court’s remedy-only remand: increased penalty was invalid; remedy is to reinstate Hearing Board penalty and award back pay (remand to circuit court to implement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro Maint. Sys. S., Inc. v. Milburn, 442 Md. 289 (interpreting appealability of remands under State Gov’t §10-222(h))
- Schultz v. Pritts, 291 Md. 1 (circuit-court remand after judicial review can be appealable final order)
- VanDevander v. Voorhaar, 136 Md. App. 621 (appointing authority’s failure to follow LEOBR procedures closed the window to increase penalty)
- Hird v. City of Salisbury, 121 Md. App. 496 (timing and prerequisites for a chief’s increased penalty decision under LEOBR)
- Popkin v. Gindlesperger, 426 Md. 1 (chief’s final authority under LEOBR and related timing principles)