On May 26, 2008, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed the Maryland “Flexible Leave Act” into law. Under the Act, which is effective October 1, 2008, Maryland businesses employing 15 or more employees must allow their employees to use any form of accrued leave (vacation, sick leave or compensatory time) with pay to care for a child, spouse or parent who is ill.
On October 1, 2007, amendments to the Maryland anti-discrimination statute (Article 49B) went into effect. The Maryland Commission on Human Relations has a new FAQ on the law here. For employment purposes, protected classifications under the law include race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability and genetic information. The law opens a new era in Maryland as employment discrimination plaintiffs will now have a cause of action in state court.
The Maryland General Assembly has passed, and the Governor approved, a bill amending the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law to provide that employers may prohibit employees from receiving accrued leave upon termination of employment, provided that the company has a written policy to that effect and the employee receives the appropriate notice as provided in the statute. The text of the new law is here.
Note that in order for an employer to deny payment of accrued leave benefits upon termination it must have in place a written policy to that effect and it must give notice of leave benefits at the time of hiring. If the employer does not do so, the accrued leave benefits arguably should be paid upon termination as “wages” under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Hat tip to the Maryland Employment Law Blog.
The Maryland Department of Labor has changed its position on whether unused vacation time is a “wage” under Maryland law. Under its new position, unused vacation time must be paid to departing employees regardless of the employer’s policy. This is a change from the Maryland DOL’s previous position that employee had no right to payment for accrued, unused vacation time at termination if the employer’s policy clearly denied them that right.
UPDATE 5.14.2008 — PLEASE READ THIS POST FROM MAY 13, 2008, REGARDING THE NEW LAW IN MARYLAND DEALING WITH ACCRUED LEAVE.
Continuing a thread of comments today and yesterday, we note the passing of legislation in Montgomery County, Maryland, extending protection from discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service to transgender people. In a press release dated November 13, 2007, the Montgomery County Council announced the unanimous approval of a bill that will prohibit discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service. If approved by the County Executive, the county will join “13 states, the District of Columbia and 91 other local jurisdictions [that] have enacted similar legislation that prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals.” The Washington Post noted that there was significant opposition to the bill, but that their efforts were directed at the public accommodations portion.
The controversy over the Montgomery County ordinance highlights another side to the evolving definition of “protected classes.” That is the question of how far we go in defining those who are legally protected from employment discrimination (and those who are not). If everyone falls within a protected class, then is there simply a universal wrongful discharge claim? If we go beyond immutable characteristics (such as gender or race) in defining “protected classes” — for example, the District of Columbia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment based on “personal appearance” (including manner and style of dress) – then what is the basis for choosing those who fall with a “protected class”?
Difficult questions, but ones that may be debated in the U.S. Senate when the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is considered.
Subscribe to our feed