Sweeney v. Hartz Mountain Corp.

PER CURIAM. Our decision in this case involving alleged employment discrimination is controlled by two recent opinions, Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Colleen Donnelly, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 1566 , 108 L.Ed.2d 834 (1990), and McCrory Corp. v. Fowler, 319 Md. 12 , 570 A.2d 834 (1990). The plaintiff, Coleen M. Sweeney, had been employed by the defendant, The Hartz Mountain Corporation, as Assistant Warehouse Manager at Hartz Mountain’s facility in Howard County, Maryland. She was discharged from her employment allegedly because of her sex and race.

Sweeney then filed a claim with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging that she had been discriminated against in violation of that statute. Thereafter the EEOC issued to her a “Notice of Right to Sue.” Next Sweeney instituted the present action by filing a complaint against Hartz Mountain in the Circuit Court for Howard County. Count I of the complaint set forth a cause of action under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of ⁴⁴² 1964. Count II was an employment discrimination action under Subtitle 2, §§ 12.200 through 12.217, of the Howard County Code.

Sections 12.200 through 12.217 of the Howard County Code represent a locally enacted legislative scheme to combat discrimination. The provisions, inter alia, establish the Human Rights Commission as an administrative agency to receive complaints of discrimination, hold hearings, render decisions, and grant relief. In addition, § 12.217 provides as follows: “Sec. 12.217. Nonexclusive remedy. “I. Rights: The provisions of this subtitle vest in all persons in Howard County the right to be free of any practices prohibited by this subtitle. “II.

Action at Law: Any person who is aggrieved by an act prohibited by this subtitle may bring an action in law or in equity in the Circuit Court for Howard County to seek damages, including counsel fees, redress of injury or injunctive relief arising out of any such prohibited act. “III. Action at Law Plus Remedies of This Subtitle: The action in the Circuit Court for Howard County shall be in addition to pursuing the procedures and seeking the remedies set forth in this subtitle.” Count II of Sweeney’s complaint in the present case was specifically grounded on § 12.217. In Count I of her complaint, under Title VII, Sweeney sought $50,000.00 “in backpay and frontpay.” In Count II, based on § 12.217 of the Howard County Code, Sweeney asked for $100,000.00 “in compensatory damages, including backpay and frontpay,” plus $1,000.00 in punitive damages. The Circuit Court for Howard county granted Hartz Mountain’s motion to dismiss Sweeney’s complaint.

The circuit court, in an extensive opinion, held that Count I should be dismissed because the federal district courts had exclusive jurisdiction over Title VII actions. The circuit court held that Count II should be dismissed because, under the Howard County Code, the Human Rights Commission ⁴⁴³ had primary jurisdiction over Sweeney’s claim. The court was of the view that Sweeney was required to invoke and exhaust her administrative remedy under the Howard County Code before pursuing her “concurrent” judicial remedy under § 12.217. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the holdings of the circuit court and affirmed.

Sweeney v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 78