Sweeney v. Hartz Mountain Corp.

POLLITT, Judge. Appellant, Coleen M. Sweeney, sued appellee, The Hartz Mountain Corporation, her former employer, in the Circuit Court for Howard County. 1 Her complaint alleged discrimination on the basis of sex in the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment, including but not limited to her discharge. Count I alleged a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Count II alleged discrimination in violation of § 12.200 et seq. of the Howard County Code. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b), appellee moved to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can ⁸¹ be granted.

The motion asserted “(1) that Count I must be dismissed because it sets forth a cause of action that may only be pursued in the federal courts, and (2) that Count II is barred because plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to seeking relief in a court of law.” 2 After a hearing on the motion, the trial court (Kane, J.) held that Title VII claims “must be heard in federal court” and that the Howard County Human Rights Commission has primary jurisdiction over claims filed under the Howard County ordinance. The court, accordingly, granted the motion to dismiss and this appeal ensued. Appellant presents for our consideration three issues, which she states as: I. Whether the plain language of Sec. 12-217 of the Howard County Code permits the bringing of an action for judicial relief without exhaustion of available administrative remedies.

II

Whether by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, Plaintiff met any exhaustion requirement for pursuing the judicial relief provided by Sec. 12-217 of the Howard County Code.

III

Whether a State court may exercise jurisdiction of a claim brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. We agree with the reasoning and the holding of the circuit court and shall affirm the order granting the motion to dismiss. Facts When dealing with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as with its predecessor, the now defunct demurrer, we accept all well ⁸² pleaded facts as true. Appellant’s complaint alleged, in substance, that she began work for appellee on 13 September 1976 as a warehouse worker; that her salary and responsibilities steadily increased until 22 August 1983, during which time her performance was rated as “excellent”; that on 22 August 1983 she received another increase in salary and was promoted to supervisor; that although she had once been told she should be “more strict with her subordinates,” she was given no advance notice of any problems and was not allowed to take disciplinary action against subordinates even though expected to function as a supervisor, while male and black employees in equal positions were treated differently; that on 20 July 1984 she was discharged without explanation and replaced by a black male; that she filed a charge of discrimination in employment under Title VII within 180 days of her discharge; and that on 31 December 1985 she received a “notice of right to sue.” I Appellant’s first argument is that the plain language of § 12.217 of the Howard County Code authorizes the bringing of this action without first resorting to the administrative remedies provided by the Code.

The specific section relied upon to support this position states: 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. ⁸³ In addressing this argument, we must first distinguish between the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies. That distinction was clearly drawn by Judge Levine for the Court of Appeals in Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Wash. Nat’l Arena, 282 Md. 588 , 386 A.2d 1216 (1978).

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is a judicially created rule designed to coordinate the allocation of functions between courts and administrative bodies. The doctrine is not concerned with subject matter jurisdiction or the competence of a court to adjudicate, but rather is predicated upon policies of judicial restraint: “which portion of the dispute-settling apparatus — the courts or the agencies — should, in the interests of judicial administration, first take the jurisdiction that both the agency and the court have.” It comes into play when a court and agency have concurrent jurisdiction over the same matter, and there is no statutory provision to coordinate the work of the court with that of the agency. Primary jurisdiction is thus not a principle that governs judicial review of administrative action and in this regard is distinguishable from the doctrine requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The latter doctrine demands that a party fully pursue administrative procedures before obtaining limited judicial review and contemplates a situation in which the claim asserted is enforceable initially by administrative action exclusively____ In contrast, primary jurisdiction is relevant only if the claim is enforceable by original judicial action, that is, where the claim is initially cognizable in the courts but raises issues or relates to subject matter falling within the special expertise of an administrative agency, [citations omitted] Id., 282 Md. at 601-02 , 386 A.2d at 1225-26 .

The Howard County Code (Title 12 — Health and Social Services, Subtitle 2 — Human Rights), §§ 12-200 through 12-218, is a broad expression of public policy by The Howard County Government directed toward the elimination of ⁸⁴ discriminatory practices within Howard County in housing, employment, law enforcement, public accommodations, financing and “[ajny other facets of the lives of its citizens where such practices may be found to exist.” § 12-200. It establishes a Human Rights Commission and an Administrator of the Howard County Office of Human Rights, charged with, among other things, investigation of complaints and enforcement of rights guaranteed by the statute. It provides for the conduct of administrative hearings and provides for appropriate action by the Commission upon a finding that a respondent has engaged in acts which violate the statute. Any party may appeal any decision or order of the Commission to the Circuit Court for Howard County.

Section 12-208 generally prohibits discrimination in employment practices because of, among other things, race or sex, “in such a way that such person(s) are adversely affected in the area of employment.” It is unlawful if, because of discrimination, an employer discharges a person or acts against a person with respect to compensation or other terms and conditions of employment. § 12-208II(a). Upon a finding of a violation of the ordinance, the Commission may order, among other things, reinstatement or hiring of employees, back pay, nonmonetary relief, and any other equitable relief deemed appropriate. § 12-212IV(k). The Administrator may seek injunctive relief to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable harm. § 12-212VII(a). Civil penalties of not more than $1,000 damages plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, may be recovered in a civil action against a person found to have engaged in “any discriminatory act(s) in violation of this subtitle resulting in humiliation and mental anguish to the person(s) aggrieved” by such discrimination. § 12-216.

Following these provisions, § 12-217 establishes the nonexclusive judicial remedy previously quoted. It is apparent that the statute creates two remedies for the same wrong, giving the court and the agency “concurrent jurisdiction over the same matter.” It is equally ⁸⁵ apparent that the statute contains no “provision to coordinate the work of the court with that of the agency.” Unquestionably, the claim “is initially cognizable in the courts but raises issues or relates to subject matter falling within the specific expertise of an administrative agency.” See Comm’n, Human Relations v. Baltimore County Savings & Loan, 52 Md.App. 357, 365, 449 A.2d 455, 460 (1982). In Bd. of Ed. For Dorchester Co. v. Hubbard, 305 Md. 774 , 506 A.2d 625 (1986), the issue was whether the courts or the State Board of Education had primary jurisdiction over the question of arbitration of grievances arising from collective bargaining between teachers and the county Boards of Education. The Court held that the State Board of Education had primary jurisdiction in interpreting the public education law, and although the courts certainly had jurisdiction to entertain suits to stay or vacate arbitration, they should not exercise that jurisdiction until the parties had pursued and exhausted their administrative remedies and obtained a final decision from the State Board of Education.

Conversely, in Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Wash. Nat’l Arena, supra, the Court said the issue in the case — the construction of a lease agreement — did not require the special expertise of the Tax Court and, therefore, primary jurisdiction was properly in the circuit courts. Citing Maryland National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Crawford, 307 Md. 1 , 511 A.2d 1079 (1986), appellant asserts that Crawford recognizes that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not bar the bringing of claims that are independent of the remedies enforced by an administrative agency. In Crawford the question was whether an action could be brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 without resort to the administrative remedies provided by Art. 49B of the Maryland Code.

The Crawford court answered in the affirmative, because a cause of action under Sec. 1983 is independent of Art. 49B. ⁸⁶ That may have been a question raised in the case, but it was one the Court specifically did not reach “because there was no violation of any applicable state law primary jurisdiction or exhaustion requirement.” The Court held that there was a proper exhaustion of the only administrative remedy which Mrs. Crawford may have been required to follow. Crawford, supra, 307 Md. at 15 , 511 A.2d at 1086 . Furthermore, as Judge Kane observed in his “Memorandum and Order,” Mrs. Crawford’s claim was specifically grounded on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and on the Maryland Constitution, and did not involve an interpretation of any law administered by the Maryland Human Relations Commission. In the case before us, the “independent” action is grounded on the very provisions of the Howard County Code administered by the Howard County Human Rights Commission.

Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court that primary jurisdiction lies with the administrative agency. II Appellant next argues that because she filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency designed to implement Title VII, she exhausted her administrative remedies necessary to obtain judicial relief. Appellant contends