Perry v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
30 A.3d 262
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Perry, employed as an Agency Procurement Associate II at Wicomico County Health Department (WCHD), sought promotion to Agency Procurement Specialist II but the position was reclassified to Trainee Level and ultimately filled by another applicant.
- Perry was laid off April 15, 2009, reassigned to Deer's Head Center on July 1, 2009, and subsequently filed a grievance on July 2, 2009 challenging the denial of the promotion.
- An August 17, 2009 hearing before WCHD Health Officer Lori Brewster denied Perry’s appeal, prompting a petition for judicial review under Maryland Rule 7-401 seeking administrative mandamus in the circuit court.
- WCHD moved to dismiss Perry’s petition on October 22, 2009; the circuit court granted the motion on April 26, 2010, concluding Perry failed to allege a substantial right.
- Perry appealed, arguing the circuit court had jurisdiction to review under administrative mandamus; the Court of Special Appeals agreed mandamus was the proper vehicle but held it did not lie because no substantial right was implicated.
- The court concluded that Perry had no protected property interest in the promotion she never obtained, and that WCHD’s procedures, even if mistaken, did not amount to unlawful or illegal actions sufficient for mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administrative mandamus was proper to review | Perry asserts circuit court has jurisdiction to review denial of promotion under Rule 7-401. | WCHD contends no substantial right or lawful basis to mandamus exists. | Administrative mandamus proper vehicle; but no mandamus lie due to lack of substantial right. |
| Whether Perry had a substantial right to the promotion | Appellant had or was entitled to the Agency Procurement Specialist II promotion. | No protected property interest in the promotion because Perry did not hold the position. | Perry had no substantial right to the promotion; no mandamus relief. |
| Whether the procedures and discretionary decision to fill the position violated appellable rights | Procedures were flawed and deprived her of a right to the promotion. | WCHD’s decision was discretionary; failure to qualify or be chosen does not imply illegal or unconstitutional action. | No error in procedures or outcome; discretionary decision not reviewable via mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Talbot County v. Miles Point, 415 Md. 372 (2010) (de novo review when conclusions are questions of law)
- Belvoir Farms Homeowners Ass'n v. North, 355 Md. 259 (1999) (administrative agency conclusions reviewed for legal error)
- Nesbit v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 382 Md. 65 (2004) (de novo review of statutory and case law applications)
- Oltman v. Board of Physicians, 182 Md.App. 65 (2008) (no protected property interest in license when certificate revoked)
- Dozier v. Dep't of Human Resources, 164 Md.App. 526 (2005) (at-will employee has no protected property interest in continued employment)
- Maryland Military Department v. Cherry, 382 Md. 117 (2004) (grievance procedures not available to former employees)