State v. Neiswanger Mgmt. Servs., LLC

Adkins, J. Statutory interpretation is a complex task for any court, and requires careful reflection upon the text of the statute, and the intent of the legislative body. These complexities are compounded when we consider a statute's relationship with equitable doctrines. The Maryland General Assembly has enacted a comprehensive scheme to identify and protect the rights of individuals in nursing facilities in Maryland called the Patient's Bill of Rights. Md. Code (1982, 2015 Repl.

Vol.), §§ 19-343 et seq . of the Health-General ("HG") Article. In this case, we are asked to decide whether the Attorney General has authority to request injunctive relief against a nursing facility pursuant to two different provisions of the Patient's Bill of Rights. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Neiswanger Management Services, LLC ("Neiswanger") operates four Maryland nursing facilities 1 located in Anne Arundel County ("New Annapolis"), Montgomery County ("NMS Silver Spring" and "NMS Springbrook"), and Prince George's County ("NMS Hyattsville"). 2 On December 21, 2016, the State of Maryland, through the Attorney General, filed a two-count Complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against Neiswanger and other related corporate and individual defendants. The Complaint alleged violations of the Patient's Bill of Rights, and the Maryland False Health Claims Act, HG §§ 2-601 et seq.

Count One, the subject of this appeal, related to allegedly unlawful resident discharges from Neiswanger facilities in violation of HG §§ 19-345, 19-345.1, and 19-345.2, as well as multiple provisions of COMAR. 3 The State alleged that Neiswanger engages in a widespread pattern of unlawful involuntary discharges of residents from their nursing facilities. These practices include involuntary discharges to homeless shelters or "sham assisted living facilities" with operators who unlawfully exploit residents' public benefits. Neiswanger discharged residents to shelters or facilities far from residents' hometowns and families. Many evicted residents are ultimately hospitalized, at the State's expense, with serious or life-threatening medical complications caused by the evictions.

To support its claims about the breadth of Neiswanger's alleged misconduct, the State asserted that during a 17-month period, from January 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016, Neiswanger issued involuntary discharge notices to at least 1,061 residents. In 1,038 of these discharge notices, Neiswanger stated that the resident was discharged for failure to pay, or for failure to arrange for payment from Medicare, 4 Medicaid, 5 or another third-party payor. By contrast, the State observed that during the same 17-month period, all of Maryland's other 225 licensed nursing facilities issued approximately 510 involuntary discharge notices. It claimed that "more than 700 people" who "reside in the five NMS facilities," could be affected by Neiswanger's unlawful discharge practices.

The State provided detailed factual narratives of eight Neiswanger residents' discharges between October 2015 and August 2016. These residents were improperly discharged to family members' homes, homeless shelters, or predatory unlicensed assisted living facilities in violation of the Patient's Bill of Rights. One resident was left outside a family member's home on a hot day. Residents were sent to unfamiliar locations.

In many cases, Neiswanger failed to communicate with residents and their family members regarding discharge plans. Three of the named residents had been evicted from Neiswanger facilities on multiple occasions over a period of several years. The State asserted that Neiswanger unlawfully discharges residents to benefit from the public-insurance payment system for residents of nursing facilities in Maryland. Medicare recipients are entitled to up to 100 days' coverage in a nursing facility after a qualifying hospital stay.

For the first 20 days of a resident's stay, Medicare pays the full reimbursement rate, and an 80% reimbursement rate for days 21 to 100. Some residents may be "dual eligibles," who participate in both Medicare and Medicaid. When a resident has exhausted their Medicare coverage, and is eligible for Medicaid, then the reimbursement rate shifts to the Medicaid rate. Medicaid provides coverage for long-term care in nursing facilities for eligible Maryland residents, and has significantly lower reimbursement rates than Medicare.

The Complaint charged that Neiswanger "strives to discharge each resident of its nursing homes at the precise point in time when the resident can be replaced by someone else with a more favorable public health insurance profile." It does this by maximizing the number of Medicare recipient residents and minimizing the number of Medicaid recipient residents. The State alleged that Neiswanger monitors residents' public health insurance statuses to identify candidates for eviction, and times that eviction to coincide with the end of the resident's Medicare coverage. It also claimed that Neiswanger unlawfully discharges Medicaid recipients to make room for more lucrative Medicare recipients in violation of HG § 19-345(b)(1)(ii). The State alleged that in executing these practices, Neiswanger committed multiple violations of the Patient's Bill of Rights and COMAR, including failure to give required notices, in violation of HG § 19-345.1(c)(2)(i) and COMAR 10.07.09.10(D)(8).

The timing of Neiswanger's discharge notices is also allegedly improper. The State claims that Neiswanger issued discharge notices before providing residents with notice of nonpayment, in violation of HG § 19-345(a)(4). Family members often learned of discharges shortly before they occurred, the day of the discharge, or not at all, in violation of COMAR 10.07.09.09(F)(4). Neiswanger allegedly fails to properly document discharges or provide residents and families with a written statement containing statutorily-required information about discharges.

The State also asserted that Neiswanger violates HG § 19-345.2 by failing to engage in discharge planning, develop appropriate post-discharge plans of care, or comply with other statutory procedures required before an involuntary discharge or transfer. Neiswanger allegedly does not arrange for post-discharge medical care for discharged residents, or provide a 3-day supply of current medications upon discharge. Neiswanger also violates its statutory obligation to place involuntarily discharged residents in safe and secure environments, in violation of HG § 19-345.2(c)(2). The State also alleged that Neiswanger violates HG § 19-344(c)(5)(ii) ("C & A Clause") by failing to "cooperate with and assist" residents and their agents in applying for long-term care coverage from the medical assistance program.

Specifically, Neiswanger "ignor[es] resident requests for assistance," "delay[s] the submission of required paperwork to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene," 6 or "impedes the submission of the long-term care applications of Medicare/Medicaid dual eligibles ...." Relying on HG §§ 19-344(c)(6)(iii) ("Enforcement Clause") and 19-345.3(c) ("Injunction Clause"), Count One 7 of the State's Complaint sought an injunction to prohibit Neiswanger from: (1) further violations of HG §§ 19-344 - 19-345.2 and COMAR 10.07.09; (2) issuing notices of involuntary discharge for failure to pay except under specifically delineated circumstances; (3) discharging a resident who is a Medicaid participant or is Medicaid-eligible, without documenting the resident's or legal representative's failure to cooperate in applying for benefits or arranging for reimbursement; (4) discharging, for non-payment, any resident who has a pending application for Medicaid benefits, unless Neiswanger had a good faith basis for believing that the resident is ineligible for benefits; (5) discharging any resident to an unlicensed assisted living facility or incorporating such a facility into a post-discharge plan of care; and (6) discharging any resident to a homeless shelter, or incorporating such a discharge into a post-discharge plan of care, or discharging a resident without an identified discharge destination. After the State filed its Complaint, but before Neiswanger had responded, the Department issued a Notice of Restrictions on Admissions to Neiswanger facilities, prohibiting the facilities from admitting or re-admitting residents. After a hearing, an administrative law judge recommended that the Secretary rescind the ban. On January 26, 2017, Neiswanger entered into a Consent Agreement with the Department, requiring Neiswanger to implement changes to its involuntary discharge practices, comply with the Patient's Bill of Rights, and install an independent monitor to supervise and ensure its compliance with the Consent Agreement. 8 Neiswanger, the Department, and the independent monitor, Dr. Daniel Haimowiz, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated February 8, 2017, which expired after three months, to implement the terms of the Consent Agreement.

The MOU set out specific compliance procedures for Neiswanger and outlined numerous conditions for the independent monitoring. Neiswanger and the other defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. After a hearing, the Circuit Court dismissed Count One of the State's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court agreed that the allegations in the State's Complaint, if true, "would certainly be in violation of the Patient's Bill of Rights ...." But the Circuit Court concluded that the Injunction Clause does not authorize "a broad sweeping injunction against these Defendants' company practices." It determined, based on the plain language of the statute, that the Injunction Clause authorizes injunctive relief only for an individual resident.

The Circuit Court also found that the State lacked authority to sue for an injunction under the Enforcement Clause, because the statute does not specify injunctive relief as a means of enforcement for violations of § 19-344. 9 The State filed a timely appeal pursuant to Md. Code (1973, 2013 Repl. Vol.), § 12-303(3)(iii) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from a court's refusal to grant an injunction. Before the Court of Special Appeals issued a scheduling order, the State petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. We granted certiorari to answer the following questions: 1.

Did the Circuit Court err in holding that, although Health-General § 19-345.3 authorizes a court to grant "injunctive relief" to remedy violations of the discharge-related provisions of the Patient's Bill of Rights, the statute excludes injunctive relief barring "company practices" that violate those provisions? 2. Did the Circuit Court err in holding that the statutory responsibility conferred on the Attorney General by Health-General § 19-344 for the "enforcement" of certain of its provisions related to the Medicaid application process does not authorize the Attorney General to seek, or a court to grant, a judicial injunction enforcing those provisions? We answer both questions affirmatively. DISCUSSION The State appeals from the grant of a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A court considering a motion to dismiss must: assume the truth of, and view in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, all well-pleaded facts and allegations contained in the complaint as well as all inferences that may reasonably be drawn from them, and order dismissal only if the allegations and permissible inferences, if true, would not afford relief to the plaintiff .... RRC Ne., LLC v. BAA Maryland, Inc. , 413 Md. 638 , 643, 994 A.2d 430 (2010). The Circuit Court ruled that the Injunction Clause did not authorize the kind of broad injunctive relief the State sought, and that the Enforcement Clause did not authorize injunctive relief at all. Our resolution of these questions necessitates interpretation of these statutes, which is a question of law.

Davis v. Slater , 383 Md. 599 , 604, 861 A.2d 78 (2004). We review the Circuit Court's statutory interpretation without deference. Id. Justiciability-Mootness We first address justiciability.

A case is moot if, "at the time it is before the court, there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any effective remedy that the court can provide." Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd. , 430 Md. 144 , 162-63, 59 A.3d 1016 (2013). "An injunction should not issue if the acts sought to be enjoined have been discontinued or abandoned." Attorney Gen. v. Anne Arundel Cty. Sch. Bus Contractors Ass'n, Inc. , 286 Md. 324 , 327, 407 A.2d 749 (1979).

Although we do not generally offer opinions on moot questions, City of College Park v. Cotter , 309 Md. 573 , 580, 525 A.2d 1059 (1987), we may address moot issues under certain circumstances. See Hammen v. Baltimore Cty. Police Dep't , 373 Md. 440 , 450-51, 818 A.2d 1125 (2003). Neiswanger argues that this case is moot for two reasons.

First, NMS Hagerstown has closed, and Neiswanger no longer operates the other facilities. Neiswanger asserted that "the owners of NMS are out of the picture," but admitted that its "management services company" and "personnel" were involved in the transition. Second, Neiswanger maintains that the Consent Agreement and MOU contain the relief the State initially sought in its Complaint. The State disagrees.

The State also contends that the best place to resolve the mootness inquiry regarding the transition in management is before the Circuit Court on remand. Further, the State argues that even if the case is moot, this Court can, and should apply either of two exceptions to mootness: (1) voluntary cessation, and (2) important issues of public interest, to decide the questions presented. A party's voluntary cessation of conduct, or a change in the factual circumstances that formed the basis for seeking judicial relief does not require "dismissal of the judicial proceedings on the grounds of mootness where the matter is a continuing controversy or the circumstances are likely to recur." Chase v. Chase , 287 Md. 472 , 482, 413 A.2d 208 (1980) (Eldridge, J., dissenting). As the Supreme Court explained in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl.

Servs. , 528 U.S. 167 , 189, 120 S.Ct. 693 , 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000), the standard for determining whether a defendant's "voluntary conduct" has mooted a case is "stringent," and subsequent events must make it "absolutely clear" that the alleged misconduct "could not reasonably be expected to recur." The party seeking to prove mootness carries a "heavy burden." Id. A "reasonable expectation of recurrence" may exist when the alleged misconduct was a "continuing practice or was otherwise deliberate." Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A. , 505 F.3d 1173 , 1184-85 (11th Cir. 2007). Mootness is more likely if cessation was "motivated by a defendant's genuine change of heart rather than his desire to avoid liability." Id. at 1186 . This may be shown by the factual circumstances, particularly the relationship between the cessation and pending litigation.

Id. (collecting cases). Refusal to acknowledge misconduct tends to support a conclusion that the cessation was motivated by a desire to evade liability, leaving a "live dispute" between the parties. Id. at 1187 .

We may also address moot issues if we are convinced that the case contains unresolved issues of great public concern that "merit an expression of our views for the guidance of courts and litigants in the future." Robinson v. Lee , 317 Md. 371 , 376, 564 A.2d 395 (1989). As we explained in Potomac Abatement, Inc. v. Sanchez , 424 Md. 701 , 710, 37 A.3d 972 (2012), we will depart " 'from the general rule and practice of not deciding academic questions,' " only when " 'the urgency of establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and manifest ....' " (quoting Lloyd v. Bd. of Supervisors , 206 Md. 36 , 43, 111 A.2d 379 (1954) ). If the recurrence involves the "relationship between government and its citizens or a duty of government," and is likely to evade review in the future, then we may decide a question that has become moot. La Valle v. La Valle , 432 Md. 343 , 352, 69 A.3d 1 (2013).

The record before the Court does not detail the transfer of management in the Neiswanger facilities. It is similarly lacking in specifics regarding implementation of the Consent Agreement and MOU, other than Neiswanger's assertion of compliance. We observe that the State sought relief beyond the terms of these documents, and that the Consent Agreement only required three months of supervision implemented under the MOU. 10 Given the paucity of the information available to us, we do not conclude that the factual circumstances make this case moot. We agree with the State that the best place to resolve this question is the Circuit Court.

Even if changed circumstances rendered the case moot, we could nonetheless address these questions under the voluntary cessation exception. The State alleged deliberate, unlawful conduct over a prolonged period of time in multiple Neiswanger facilities. Neiswanger entered into the Consent Agreement only after the State sued and the Department suspended all admissions, and it has never admitted any misconduct or illegality. As such, Neiswanger has not demonstrated that its allegedly wrongful behavior "could not reasonably be expected to recur." Friends of the Earth , 528 U.S. at 189 , 120 S.Ct. 693 .

The Court may address the questions presented under the other mootness exception. The legislative history surrounding the enactment of these statutes, discussed infra , demonstrates that the Maryland General Assembly considered the issues presented in this case to be a matter of significant public policy. The Attorney General's power under the Enforcement Clause and the scope of the Injunction Clause necessarily implicate the relationship between the government of Maryland and its citizens. Further, an involuntary discharge may be completed before individual residents can seek effective relief, particularly if residents do not receive adequate notice and opportunity for a hearing before discharge as required by HG § 19-345.1.

Determining the nature of the relief available and the extent of the Attorney General's enforcement powers provides important guidance for courts resolving time-sensitive issues, and will avoid duplicative and inconsistent litigation results. See Potomac Abatement , 424 Md. at 710 -11 , 37 A.3d 972 . With justiciability resolved, we turn to the questions presented. Statutory Interpretation "The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the real and actual intent of the Legislature." Lockshin v. Semsker , 412 Md. 257 , 274, 987 A.2d 18 (2010).

Our analysis begins with the plain meaning of the statute. The language "must be viewed within the context of the statutory scheme to which it belongs, considering the purpose, aim, or policy of the Legislature in enacting the statute." Id. at 275-76 , 987 A.2d 18 . "If the intent of the [L]egislature is clear from the words of the statute, our inquiry normally ends and we apply the plain meaning of the statute." Huffman v. State , 356 Md. 622 , 628, 741 A.2d 1088 (1999). "[I]f 'the language is subject to more than one interpretation, or when the language is not clear when it is part of a larger statutory scheme,' we try 'to resolve that ambiguity by looking to the statute's legislative history, case law, and statutory purpose, as well as the structure of the statute.' " State v. Ray , 429 Md. 566 , 576, 57 A.3d 444 (2012) (quoting Friedman v. Hannan , 412 Md. 328 , 337, 987 A.2d 60 (2010) ).

The interpretation must be reasonable, not "absurd, illogical, or incompatible with common sense." Lockshin , 412 Md. at 276 , 987 A.2d 18 . We begin with the Injunction Clause. The Injunction Clause The Circuit Court, relying on State Comm'n on Human Relations. v. Talbot Cty. Detention Ctr. , 370 Md. 115 , 803 A.2d 527 (2002), reasoned that traditional equitable factors do not apply if an injunction is statutorily authorized, and the court must be guided by the specific language of the statute.

Applying this rule, the Circuit Court determined that "injunctive relief authorized is only for an individual resident, or a specified resident acting on the resident's behalf, if an involuntary discharge in violation of the law is imminent or has taken place." Thus, it reasoned, the State was not entitled to broad relief enjoining Neiswanger's "company practices" under the Injunction Clause and had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Neiswanger urges this Court to accept the Circuit Court's interpretation of the Injunction Clause-as law that not only authorizes, but cabins, relief to actions on behalf of named individuals. To the contrary, the State sees the Injunction Clause as containing no restriction on the Attorney General's ability to act on behalf of multiple residents. In its view, when a violation of the Patient's Bill of Rights occurs, at the request of the Attorney General, a circuit court would have discretion to exercise its "full equitable authority." The State avers that the Circuit Court read the Injunction Clause too narrowly, and ignored the principle that enforcement provisions of remedial statutes should be read broadly to "afford complete relief consistent with the statute's remedial purposes." The Language Of The Injunction Clause We turn to the language of the Injunction Clause.

A resident, resident's agent, or resident's attorney, or the Attorney General on behalf of the resident, who believes that an involuntary discharge or transfer that violates the requirements of § 19-345, § 19-345.1, or § 19-345.2 of this subtitle is imminent or has taken place may request injunctive relief from a circuit court. HG § 19-345.3(c). The statute accords standing to two categories of parties. The first, a "resident, resident's agent, or resident's attorney" are plaintiffs whose suits would likely redress the unlawful involuntary transfer or discharge of a specific resident.

The second, and the one at issue here, is "the Attorney General, on behalf of the resident." We consider whether, by authorizing the Attorney General to take such action, the General Assembly intended for the Attorney General to act on behalf of multiple residents. 11 We are unable to find any Maryland cases that have addressed the meaning of "on behalf of" in this context. To consider whether the General Assembly intended to authorize broad or narrow enforcement of the Injunction Clause, we turn to the statutes constituting the Patient's Bill of Rights and legislative history. Legislative History Of The Injunction Clause The Injunction Clause was not enacted in a vacuum. It was part of a broad statutory scheme governing involuntary discharge or transfer practices in Maryland nursing facilities that amended the Patient's Bill of Rights.

See H.B. 343, 1995 Leg., 409th Sess. (Md. 1995). HG § 19-343(b) delineates the General Assembly's policy behind the Patient's Bill of Rights: (b)(1) The General Assembly intends to promote the interests and well-being of each resident of a facility . (2) It is the policy of this State that, in addition to any other rights, each resident of a facility has the following basic rights: (i) The right to be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of human dignity and individuality; (ii) The right to receive treatment, care, and services that are adequate, appropriate, and in compliance with relevant State and federal laws, rules, and regulations ....

(Emphasis added). This statement of intent reflects the purpose of the General Assembly to sweep broadly in according legislative protection to the vulnerable population of nursing facilities. See 2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland's Statutory Construction § 45.9 (7th ed. 2014) (policy section of statute stating general objectives helps court's interpretation). In 1995, the General Assembly, at the "urging of the Attorney General ...." Oak Crest Village, Inc. v. Murphy , 379 Md. 229 , 245 (n.5, 841 A.2d 816 2004), amended the Patient's Bill of Rights ("1995 Amendments").

The General Assembly delegated investigatory and enforcement authority to the Attorney General in several provisions of the Patient's Bill of Rights, including the Injunction Clause. HG § 19-345.2(e) authorizes the Attorney General to investigate, either upon receipt of a complaint, or under independent initiative, whether an abuse of funds under HG § 19-346 12 contributed to a decision to transfer or discharge a resident, and make referrals to other agencies. 13 The Attorney General must also enforce HG § 19-344(c)(4)-(5), relating to applications to the medical assistance program on behalf of a nursing facility resident or applicant, which we discuss in greater detail infra . See HG § 19-344(c)(6)(iii) ; see also Walton v. Mariner Health of Md., Inc. , 391 Md. 643 , 672, 894 A.2d 584 (2006). In the 1995 Amendments, the General Assembly also made substantial alterations to existing statutes, and enacted HG §§ 19-345.1 through 19-345.3. 14 See 1995 Md. Laws, ch. 547, § 1.

As we observed in Walton , 391 Md. at 671 , 894 A.2d 584 , the General Assembly passed this bill to "safeguard nursing home residents from being involuntarily discharged from a facility due to nonpayment." Proponents of 1995 Amendments sought "to assure the safety and well-being of vulnerable Marylanders facing the trauma often associated with the discharge and transfer process.... [because] [p]atients facing discharge may fear that they will not receive adequate care in the new location, or may face a new environment which threatens their physical or emotional well-being." 15 The provisions most relevant to the scope of the Injunction Clause are HG §§ 19-345 through 19-345.2, which provide a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating involuntary transfers and discharges from nursing facilities. HG § 19-345(a) permits an involuntary discharge or transfer from a nursing facility only in certain circumstances: (1) The transfer or discharge is necessary for the resident's welfare and the resident's needs cannot be met in the facility; (2) The transfer or discharge is appropriate because the resident's health has improved sufficiently so that the resident no longer needs the services provided by the facility; (3) The health or safety of an individual in a facility is endangered; (4) The resident has failed, after reasonable and appropriate notice to pay for, or under Medicare or Medicaid or otherwise to have paid for, a stay at the facility; or (5) The facility ceases to operate. These provisions are generally consistent with federal law and regulations governing involuntary discharges and transfers. See, e.g. , 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(c)(2)(A)(i)-(vi) (2012) ; 42 C.F.R. § 483.15 (c)(1) (2018).

As amended, HG § 19-345 retained existing protections for Medicaid-eligible residents, and added new ones. Id. (b)(1)-(2). 16 HG § 19-345.1(a) established new guidelines for notice and hearing requirements before a proposed involuntary discharge or transfer. 17 HG § 19-345.2 was an essential feature of the 1995 Amendments. Notes from the testimony of the Director of the Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit refer to the implementation of specific practices before involuntary discharge as the "heart of this bill." See Related Institutions-Discharge, Transfer and Assets of Residents: Hearing on H.B. 343 before the H. Comm. on Envtl.

Matters , 1995 Leg., 409th Sess. (Md. 1995). HG § 19-345.2 established specific procedures to be followed before a discharge or transfer, including medical assessments, a "post-discharge plan of care for the resident," as well as written documentation from the resident's attending physician indicating that the transfer is consistent with the post-discharge plan of care, and appropriate based on the resident's medical condition. Id.

(a)(1). Facilities must provide residents with at least a 3-day supply of medications, and certain information. Id. (b).

A resident must consent in writing to a discharge or transfer unless it is consistent with the post-discharge plan of care, and is to a "safe and secure" environment where the resident is under the care of a licensed provider, or a person "who has agreed in writing to provide a safe and secure environment." Id. (c)(2). These statutes demonstrate clear legislative intent to limit involuntary discharges and transfers, and ensure that when they do occur, they are subject to procedural controls ensuring a resident's health and safety. See Walton , 391 Md. at 671 , 894 A.2d 584 .

Although Maryland law had some protections for residents of nursing homes before the 1995 Amendments, the new statutory scheme is more robust, and gives the Attorney General the authority to address violations of key provisions. See 1995 Md. Laws, ch. 547, § 1. The 1995 Amendments are remedial because they authorized injunctive relief for residents who are facing, or have been subjected to involuntary discharge or transfer. See Langston v. Riffe , 359 Md. 396 , 408, 754 A.2d 389 (2000) ("[R]emedial statutes are those which provide a remedy, or improve or facilitate remedies already existing for the enforcement of rights and the redress of injuries." (quoting 3 Norman J. Singer, Sutherland's Statutory Construction § 60.02, at 152 (5th ed. 1993) ) ).

See also Lockett v. Blue Ocean Bristol, LLC , 446 Md. 397 , 424, 132 A.3d 257 (2016). But the legislative history does not explicitly state whether the General Assembly intended for the Attorney General to be able to act on behalf of multiple residents, or the breadth of relief available. Relevant Federal Authority The State asks us to consider Federal authority interpreting remedial federal statutes that permit public enforcement based on statutory violations by private individuals. In United States v. Sch.

Dist. of Ferndale, Mich. , 577 F.2d 1339 , 1343-44 (6th Cir. 1978), the Sixth Circuit considered a similar issue under the Equal Education Opportunity Act ("EEOA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1706 (2012). Section 1706 authorizes an "individual denied an equal education opportunity" to file a civil action for relief, and further provides that "[t]he Attorney General of the United States ... for or in the name of the United States, may also institute such a civil action on behalf of such an individual." In Ferndale , the district court dismissed an EEOA claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the complaint "did not adequately identify those persons 'on whose behalf' the action was being brought by the Attorney General." 577 F.2d at 1343 -44 . The district court did not require the Attorney General to actually name the individuals, but sought enough specificity to allow the court to determine whether a particular individual was within the group the Attorney General had sued on behalf of. Id. at 1344 .

The Sixth Circuit reversed, ruling that § 1706 did not require the Attorney General to identify "all actual or potential victims" who had been denied an equal educational opportunity, or even specifically identify such an individual in the complaint. Id. at 1344-45 . Provided that there was "at least one person arguably denied equal educational opportunity," the statutory requirement was met. Id. at 1345 .

In reaching this conclusion, the Sixth Circuit emphasized that Congress had established a "broad role" for the Attorney General in "enforcing the remedial provisions of the EEOA." Id. at 1345 n.8. 18 The court saw "no reason to read into the statute a pleading rule not specified by Congress that can only have the effect of impeding enforcement of the Act." Id. at 1345 . It explained that the district court's narrow interpretation of the purpose of the EEOA to protect individual rights was inconsistent with the EEOA's broader purpose of eliminating segregation-era school systems. Id. at 1345 n.9. We agree with the State that, for our purposes, § 1706 of the EEOA is similar, although not identical, to the Injunction Clause. 19 Both statutes authorize an individual cause of action, as well as public enforcement by the Attorney General.

Compare 20 U.S.C. § 1706 , with HG § 19-345.3(c). Further, like § 1706, the Injunction Clause establishes a standard the Attorney General must meet to seek injunctive relief- i.e. , an illegal involuntary discharge or transfer. See Ferndale , 577 F.2d at 1345 . And the Injunction Clause, like § 1706, is a remedial statute.

As such, we construe it "liberally in favor of claimants to 'suppress the evil and advance the remedy.' " Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. Phillips , 413 Md. 606 , 620, 994 A.2d 411 (2010) (quoting Haas v. Lockheed Martin Corp. , 396 Md. 469 , 495, 914 A.2d 735 (2007) ). Statutorily-Authorized Injunctive Relief And Judicial Equitable Discretion To determine whether the Injunction Clause permits the broad relief the State sought, we consider the effect of a statutory injunctive remedy on a court's equitable discretion. Both parties rely on State Comm'n on Human Relations v. Talbot Cty.

Detention Ctr. , 370 Md. 115 , 803 A.2d 527 (2002), but disagree about the application of this case. The State argues that because the Injunction Clause does not contain a limitation on available relief, Talbot County requires a court to read that provision broadly. It reasons that once it has satisfied the statutory standard, the circuit court's equitable jurisdiction permits complete relief. Neiswanger contends that Talbot County restricts courts from exercising equitable discretion in statutorily-authorized injunctions, and the Injunction Clause limits the scope of the relief to redressing wrongs for an individual resident.

"An injunction is 'a writ framed according to the circumstances of the case commanding an act which the court regards as essential to justice, or restraining an act which it esteems contrary to equity and good conscience.' " El Bey v. Moorish Sci. Temple of America , 362 Md. 339 , 353, 765 A.2d 132 (2001) (quoting Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. , 361 Md. 371 , 394, 761 A.2d 899 (2000) ). To receive injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "it will sustain substantial and irreparable injury as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct." Id. at 355, 765 A.2d 132 .

Injunctions authorized by statute are, however, distinct from those issued under a court's traditional equitable powers. See Talbot Cty. , 370 Md. at 128 -29 , 803 A.2d 527 . In Talbot County , the Maryland Commission on Human Rights alleged that the Talbot County Detention Center impeded the Commission's investigation into two verified complaints of employment discrimination. Id. at 123 , 803 A.2d 527 .

The Commission sought injunctive relief pursuant to Art. 49B § 4 of the Human Relations Commission Article, Md. Code (1957, 1998 Repl. Vol.), repealed by 2009 Md. Laws ch. 120, § 1, for the duration of its investigation to prohibit the Detention Center from attending confidential witness interviews, and from discouraging