292 A.3d 294
Md.2023Background
- Jennifer Rowe alleged KMMD (a gym) deleted a Facebook comment about her mental-health disabilities and later terminated her membership for disruptive conduct.
- The Maryland Commission on Civil Rights investigated, found no probable cause, and denied Rowe’s request for reconsideration.
- SG § 20-1005(d)(2) makes a denial of reconsideration a “final order appealable to the circuit court as provided in § 10-222” of the APA, provided the EEOC lacks jurisdiction.
- Rowe petitioned for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City; the court affirmed the Commission.
- Rowe appealed to the Appellate Court, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed, holding § 20-1005(d)(2) unambiguously provides only circuit-court review and contains no express grant of appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Appellate Court has jurisdiction over appeals from circuit-court judgments reviewing Commission no-probable-cause findings | Rowe: § 20-1005(d)(2) incorporates § 10-222 (APA circuit-court review); § 10-223 allows appeals to Appellate Court, so appellate review is expressly granted | Commission: § 20-1005(d)(2) references only § 10-222 and therefore limits review to the circuit court; § 10-223 applies to APA contested cases, not to no-probable-cause investigatory reviews | Held: No. § 20-1005(d)(2) expressly authorizes circuit-court review only; no express statutory grant to the Appellate Court, so appeal dismissed |
| Whether a reference to § 10-222 implicitly imports § 10-223 appellate rights | Rowe: referencing § 10-222 makes the proceeding “under” the APA contested-cases subtitle, so § 10-223’s appeal right follows | Commission: reference to § 10-222 applies only those APA provisions that are applicable; investigatory no-probable-cause matters are not APA contested cases and do not trigger § 10-223 | |
| Role of legislative history and practice (e.g., Vavasori) in construing § 20-1005(d)(2) | Rowe: Vavasori decisions and legislative materials show the Legislature intended judicial review and (as applied historically) appellate review followed | Commission: Legislative history shows only that the Legislature wanted circuit-court review; the statute’s plain text controls and does not authorize appellate review |
| Held (for both latter issues) | The Court: Plain language is unambiguous — § 20-1005(d)(2) references only § 10-222 and confines review to the circuit court; legislative history and prior practice do not supply the required express statutory grant to the Appellate Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisriel v. Ocean City Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 345 Md. 477 (1997) (appellate jurisdiction is determined by statute; right to appeal must be legislatively granted)
- Lockshin v. Semsker, 412 Md. 257 (2010) (statutory interpretation: begin with plain language and avoid adding or deleting text)
- Pabst Brewing Co. v. Frederick P. Winner, Ltd., 478 Md. 61 (2022) (recitation of Maryland canons for statutory interpretation)
- Mayor & Town Council of Oakland v. Mayor & Town Council of Mountain Lake Park, 392 Md. 301 (2006) (construe statute as whole so no clause is surplusage)
- Vavasori v. Comm’n on Hum. Rels., 65 Md. App. 237 (1985) (Appellate Court reached merits after statute authorizing circuit-court review was enacted in response to jurisdictional dismissal)
- State Comm’n on Hum. Rels. v. Kaydon Ring & Seal, Inc., 149 Md. App. 666 (2003) (APA contested-case procedures supply appellate review paths for final administrative orders following hearings)