Maryland — Workplace Discrimination

Maryland's primary anti-discrimination statute is the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA), codified in Subtitle 6 of Title 20 of the State Government Article. The MFEPA prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, disability, and, effective October 1, 2024, military status. The addition of military status as a protected class was enacted by Chapter 323 of the 2024 Laws of Maryland (S.B. 413), amending Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-606(a)(1)(i). The statute applies to employers with 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. For harassment claims specifically, the employer threshold drops to one or more employees (same durational test). The Maryland Commission on Civil Rights enforces the Act.

Source: Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-601; Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-606

Maryland requires employees alleging workplace discrimination under MFEPA to file an administrative complaint with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (MCCR) before pursuing a civil lawsuit. For employment discrimination claims (other than harassment), the complaint must be filed within 300 days after the alleged discriminatory act occurred. For harassment claims specifically, the deadline extends to 2 years from the date of the alleged harassment. These administrative filing deadlines are statutory; internal grievance procedures, union processes, arbitration, or mediation do not extend the time to file with MCCR, though such alternative forums may be pursued simultaneously with the MCCR complaint process.

Source: Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-1004(c)(2), (c)(3); MCCR Timeliness Guidance

Maryland established a strict liability standard for supervisor harassment that diverges from federal Title VII doctrine. Under Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-611, enacted in 2019 and effective October 1, 2019, an employer is liable for harassment in two distinct circumstances: (1) harassment by an individual who "undertakes or recommends a tangible employment action affecting the employee" or who "directs, supervises, or evaluates the work activities of the employee" (§ 20-611(a)(1)); or (2) if the negligence of the employer led to the harassment or continuation of harassment (§ 20-611(a)(2)).

Expanded supervisor definition

The statute's definition of who qualifies as a "supervisor" for harassment-liability purposes is considerably broader than federal case law. Maryland imposes strict liability for harassment by any individual who "directs, supervises, or evaluates the work activities of the employee," even if that individual lacks formal authority to hire, fire, promote, or demote. This statutory language captures team leads, project coordinators, and informal supervisors who exercise day-to-day direction over an employee's tasks but do not hold traditional management titles or authority to take tangible employment actions. The statute also covers individuals who "undertake or recommend" tangible employment actions — the latter extending liability to those who merely recommend (but do not finalize) personnel decisions affecting the complainant.

Elimination of the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense

Maryland law does not incorporate the two-part affirmative defense recognized under federal Title VII in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). Under those Supreme Court decisions, an employer facing a hostile-environment harassment claim by a supervisor (absent a tangible employment action) may avoid liability by proving: (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment; and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. Maryland's statutory scheme omits this defense entirely for harassment by individuals meeting the § 20-611(a)(1) definition. Once the complainant establishes that harassment occurred and was perpetrated by someone who directs, supervises, or evaluates the employee's work, the employer is liable — regardless of whether the employer maintained strong anti-harassment policies, provided training, or took prompt corrective action after learning of the conduct.

Negligence-based liability for non-supervisor harassment

For harassment by co-workers or other individuals who do not meet the supervisor definition, § 20-611(a)(2) imposes liability if "the negligence of the employer led to the harassment or continuation of harassment." This mirrors the common-law negligence standard applied under federal Title VII for co-worker harassment: the employer is liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, effective remedial action. The employer's knowledge may be actual (a direct complaint) or constructive (the harassment was so pervasive or open that the employer reasonably should have discovered it through ordinary supervision).

Application to independent contractors

Maryland's 2019 amendments also expanded the definition of "employee" in § 20-601(d) to include "an individual working as an independent contractor for an employer." Consequently, the strict-liability and negligence-based harassment standards in § 20-611 apply equally to harassment of independent contractors, not solely to common-law employees. This is a significant departure from federal Title VII, which limits coverage to employees and does not protect independent contractors from workplace harassment.

Practical implications

The elimination of the Faragher/Ellerth defense shifts risk decisively onto Maryland employers. Training programs, written policies, and prompt investigation — while still best practices for preventing harassment and mitigating other forms of liability (including potential punitive damages) — do not insulate an employer from liability when the harasser directed, supervised, or evaluated the complainant's work. Employers evaluating settlement posture or litigation risk in Maryland harassment cases should not analogize to federal hostile-environment standards that permit an affirmative defense; Maryland law forecloses that path.

Source: Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-611; Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-601(d)

If you file a timely administrative charge with MCCR, you may later file a civil lawsuit in state court—but only if you follow the specific statutory process and timing rules under Maryland law.

Private right of action (aggrieved person files in circuit court): Under COMAR 14.03.01.14 (.14 Private Right of Action), a complainant may file a private lawsuit if these three conditions are met:

• You initially filed a timely administrative complaint under state, federal, or local law;
• At least 180 days have passed since you filed that complaint; and
• You file your lawsuit within two years of the date the discriminatory act occurred.

Also, you must give the Commission written notice of your intent to sue before filing, and then—within 90 days after that—deliver a copy of your bill of complaint to MCCR. MCCR will then close the administrative process. Source: COMAR 14.03.01.14

Election of civil action instead of administrative hearing (housing context): In housing cases, COMAR 14.03.04.15 allows a complainant (or respondent) to choose a civil lawsuit instead of proceeding to an administrative hearing. That election must occur within 20 days after being served. If elected, MCCR’s General Counsel must start suit in court within 60 days of election. Note: This pathway applies only to housing discrimination and does not apply to employment discrimination. Source: COMAR 14.03.04.15

Do you have to wait for a “probable cause” finding? No. Under the private-action route, you can file suit once 180 days have passed since filing the administrative complaint—even if MCCR has not yet issued a probable‑cause determination or conciliation. That 180‑day waiting period is the statutory trigger—not the issuance of a probable‑cause finding. COMAR 14.03.01.14 sets this rule; MCCR guidance confirms that choosing to proceed in court ends administrative processing, regardless of outcome. Source: COMAR 14.03.01.14

Deadline summary (employment context):

• File with MCCR within statutory filing deadline (e.g., 300 days for employment).
• Wait 180 days from filing the administrative charge.
• Then file suit in circuit court within two years of the discriminatory event.
• Provide notice to MCCR when you plan to file, and send them a copy of your complaint within 90 days of that notice.

That gives you a window after the 180‑day mark and before the two‑year clock runs. The complainant does not need to wait for or rely on a probable‑cause finding, nor must they wait for MCCR to complete conciliation or issue a final determination.

Source: COMAR 14.03.01.14 Source: COMAR 14.03.04.15

A prevailing complainant under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA) may obtain a mix of monetary and equitable remedies, with specific limits set by statute.

Monetary remedies and statutory caps:

• Back pay and interest: Back pay (up to two years in compensation discrimination cases) and interest are available. Awards must be reduced by sums the complainant earned, or could reasonably have earned, after the unlawful act. (Md. State Gov’t Code Ann. § 20-1009(b)(2)(ii))
• Compensatory damages: These cover future financial losses, emotional distress, mental anguish, and similar non-pecuniary harm. The cap depends on employer size:

• $50,000 (15–100 employees) • $100,000 (101–200 employees) • $200,000 (201–500 employees) • $300,000 (501+ employees) (Md. State Gov’t Code Ann. § 20-1009(b)(3))

• Punitive damages: Only non-government employers may be liable for punitive damages, and only if “actual malice” is proven. Compensatory and punitive damages combined cannot exceed the statutory cap for the employer’s size. (Md. State Gov’t Code Ann. § 20-1013(e), § 20-1009(b)(3))

Equitable relief:

• Tribunals may order reinstatement, hiring, promotion, or other affirmative equitable remedies, as well as injunctive relief. (Md. State Gov’t Code Ann. § 20-1009(b)(1))

Attorney’s fees:

• In administrative enforcement, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded (the statute is clear for Commission/administrative cases). MFEPA does not expressly authorize attorney’s fee awards in court actions under § 20-1013, and appellate authority on judicial fee-shifting is unsettled as of July 2026.

Jury trial and damage caps:

• If compensatory or punitive damages are claimed, either party may demand a jury trial. Damage caps must not be disclosed to the jury, and any verdict above the statutory limit is reduced by the court after trial. (Md. State Gov’t Code Ann. § 20-1012(f))

This structure means monetary recovery (damages and back pay), reinstatement or other equitable relief, and (in administrative cases) attorney’s fees are potentially available, but recovery for pain, suffering, or punitive claims is capped and tightly controlled.

Source: Md. State Gov’t Code Ann. § 20-1009; Md. State Gov’t Code Ann. § 20-1013; Md. State Gov’t Code Ann. § 20-1012

Disability accommodation

The Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation for the known disability of an otherwise qualified employee or job applicant. This duty appears explicitly in Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-606(a)(4), which prohibits employers from failing or refusing "to make a reasonable accommodation for the known disability of an otherwise qualified employee or applicant for employment." The accommodation duty applies to employers covered by the Act (15+ employees for general discrimination; 1+ for harassment).

The statute does not define the precise contours of “reasonable accommodation” or “undue hardship.” However, Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-603(2) clarifies that nothing in the subtitle requires accommodation if it would impose an "undue hardship on the conduct of the business of the employer." The text does not diverge from federal standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), so in practice, Maryland courts and the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights generally interpret “undue hardship” using the significant-difficulty-or-expense threshold used at the federal level (see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)).

Religious accommodation

MFEPA also imports the federal standard for the duty to accommodate sincerely held religious practices or observances. Section 20-603(2) provides that an employer is not required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s or applicant’s religious practice if doing so causes an undue hardship on the operation of the business. Unlike federal Title VII, the Maryland statute does not elaborate a detailed standard or interactive-process rule for religious accommodation, but its adoption of the undue-hardship qualifier is explicit.

No Maryland-specific definition of “undue hardship”

Neither the reasonable accommodation nor the undue hardship standard is defined uniquely under Maryland law; the threshold is the familiar federal one, requiring more than a de minimis cost for religion (per federal precedent) and significant difficulty or expense for disability (per ADA standards).

Source: Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-606; Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-603