Maryland
How Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Maryland follows the principles articulated in Burlington Northern concerning retaliation claims under Title VII. The state recognizes the broader application of adverse employment actions beyond termination and stipulates that any action that is materially adverse to a reasonable employee constitutes retaliation.
In Maryland, an employee must demonstrate that the employer's actions would dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a discrimination claim.
The court recognized that actions such as reassignment to less desirable work can constitute an adverse employment action.
The court held that changes in job responsibilities or work schedule can qualify as retaliatory if they deter a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity.
The court ruled that emotional distress caused by retaliatory actions can support a claim under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act.
Both Maryland and the federal standard under Title VII recognize adverse actions within a broad scope. However, Maryland courts emphasize the contextual impact on a reasonable employee, potentially leading to a wider interpretation of retaliatory actions compared to the federal approach.
Knowledge of the broader interpretation of adverse employment actions under Maryland law and its alignment with the principles from Burlington Northern is crucial for the Maryland bar exam.