Maryland
How Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Employment Discrimination (Title VII).
Maryland law recognizes the principles established in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, particularly regarding employer liability for sexual harassment when a tangible employment action is taken. This is aligned with Maryland's emphasis on protecting employees from hostile work environments.
In Maryland, an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment under Title VII if the harassment resulted in a tangible employment action or under a hostile environment theory when the employer is negligent in addressing the harassment.
Affirmed that an employer can be liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor that culminates in a tangible employment action.
Held that the Maryland Human Relations Commission must evaluate claims of hostile work environment similarly to federal standards.
Reiterated the need for employers to take appropriate action upon learning of harassment to avoid liability under Maryland law.
Maryland courts generally follow the precedent set by Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, maintaining the federal standard of employer liability while emphasizing the duty of employers to prevent and respond to harassment. However, Maryland courts may impose additional procedural safeguards compared to federal courts.
Knowledge of the Ellerth framework is crucial for the Maryland bar exam, particularly regarding employer liability and the nuances of the state’s anti-discrimination law.