Marshall v. Safeway, Inc.

ADKINS, J., concurring and dissenting. Respectfully, I disagree with the Majority’s holding that Ms. Marshall had a private cause of action under Md.Code (1993, 2008 Repl. Vol., 2013 Cum.Supp.), § 3-507.2 of the Labor and Employment Article (“LE”). I agree with the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals that under a plain language interpretation, an employee can only bring a § 3-507.2 action, with its attendant treble damages and attorney’s fees, if the employer “fails to pay an employee in accordance with § 3-502 or § 3-505.” LE § 3-507.2.

Safeway violated neither LE § 3-502 nor LE § 3-505. Rather, in response to a wage garnishment, it made a deduction from Ms. Marshall’s wages that failed to comply with LE § 3-503. If the Legislature had intended to allow an employee to bring a § 3-507.2 action for the employer’s failure to comply with LE § 3-503, it certainly knew how to say so. I agree with all other aspects of the Majority opinion, and like the Majority, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

McDONALD, J., concurring. I join the Court’s very clear and well reasoned opinion. I write separately just to note that, while the Circuit Court properly exercised its discretion in this case to deny certification of a class for the reasons identified in the Court’s opinion, other claims under the Wage Payment and Collection Law may be amenable to prosecution as class actions. These are often cases in which multiple individual employees may each have a claim — claims that are small compared to many that we see, but that may be very significant to the individual employees — against the same defendant for very similar reasons.

Indeed, the closely related wage and hour laws themselves contemplate the consolidation of similar individual claims ⁵⁶⁷ against one employer in a single action. See Maryland Code, Labor & Employment Article, § 3 — 427(b)(3); 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).