Montgomery County Public Schools v. Donlon
168 A.3d 1012
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- Donlon, MCPS teacher, filed a Maryland Whistleblower Protection Law (WBL) complaint with DBM alleging retaliation for exposing AP statistics inflation at RMHS.
- DBM dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since MCPS is not an Executive Branch agency of the State government.
- An ALJ agreed, concluding no executive-branch employment relationship existed; circuit court later reversed that decision.
- MCPS appealed, arguing the WBL applies only to State executive-branch employees and that Donlon is not a State employee.
- Court held the WBL does not extend to public school teachers employed by county boards of education, and that Donlon was not a State employee under the Whitehead factors; court also addressed common-law employment, judicial estoppel, and the impact of House Bill 1145 (HB 1145).
- Court remanded to reinstate the OAH decision, reversing the circuit court.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of WBL coverage for teachers | Donlon: plain statutory language covers State employees; argues dual-state control via State Board. | MCPS: teachers are not Executive Branch employees; WBL limited to executive-branch employees. | WBL does not apply to public school teachers employed by county boards. |
| Common-law employment test applicability | Donlon argues possible dual status under control by State Board. | DBM/MCPS: Whitehead factors show no State employment. | Common-law factors do not establish Donlon as a State employee; no MSDE/state-board employment relationship. |
| Dual employment (lent employee) analysis | Donlon claims simultaneous MCPS and State Board employment. | State involvement insufficient; no express or implied contract with State; control not by State Board. | Donlon is not a dual employee under the lent-employee doctrine. |
| Judicial estoppel against MCPS | Donlon asserts MCPS is estopped from denying State-agency status. | Legal positions on agency status are not judicially estopped; no intentional misleadings shown. | MCPS is not judicially estopped from contesting State agency status for WBL. |
| HB 1145 relevance to WBL interpretation | HB 1145 would change coverage for public school employees. | HB 1145 is legislative history; does not retroactively affect interpretation of the WBL. | HB 1145 may be noticed for context but does not control the meaning of the pre-existing WBL. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chesapeake Charter, Inc. v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 358 Md. 129 (2000) (county boards are State agencies for some purposes and local for others; not units of MSDE for procurement law)
- BEKA Industries, Inc. v. Worcester Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 419 Md. 194 (2011) (sovereign immunity vs. separate unit considerations; narrow scope of Chesapeake Charter)
- Chesapeake Charter, Inc. v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 358 Md. 129 (2000) (state vs local agency status; procurements and supervision by State Board)
- White v. Register of Wills of Anne Arundel County, 217 Md. App. 187 (2014) (agency deference; DBM interpretation given substantial weight)
- Whitehead v. Safway Steel Prods., Inc., 304 Md. 67 (1985) (five-factor employment test; control is decisive)
- Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n v. Phillips, 413 Md. 606 (2010) (agency classification can vary by purpose; State vs local)