Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act — scope and protected classes
Maryland's primary anti-discrimination statute is the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA), codified in Subtitle 6 of Title 20 of the State Government Article. MFEPA prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, and disability. The statute applies to employers with 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. For harassment claims specifically, the employer threshold drops to one or more employees (same durational test). The Maryland Commission on Civil Rights enforces the Act.
MCCR administrative filing deadlines — 300 days for employment discrimination, 2 years for harassment
Maryland requires employees alleging workplace discrimination under MFEPA to file an administrative complaint with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (MCCR) before pursuing a civil lawsuit. For employment discrimination claims (other than harassment), the complaint must be filed within 300 days after the alleged discriminatory act occurred. For harassment claims specifically, the deadline extends to 2 years from the date of the alleged harassment. These administrative filing deadlines are statutory; internal grievance procedures, union processes, arbitration, or mediation do not extend the time to file with MCCR, though such alternative forums may be pursued simultaneously with the MCCR complaint process.
Source: Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-1004(c)(2), (c)(3); MCCR Timeliness Guidance
Employer liability for harassment — supervisor standard and negligence test
Maryland established a strict liability standard for supervisor harassment that diverges from federal Title VII doctrine. Under Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-611, enacted in 2019 and effective October 1, 2019, an employer is liable for harassment in two distinct circumstances: (1) harassment by an individual who "undertakes or recommends a tangible employment action affecting the employee" or who "directs, supervises, or evaluates the work activities of the employee" (§ 20-611(a)(1)); or (2) if the negligence of the employer led to the harassment or continuation of harassment (§ 20-611(a)(2)).
Expanded supervisor definition
The statute's definition of who qualifies as a "supervisor" for harassment-liability purposes is considerably broader than federal case law. Maryland imposes strict liability for harassment by any individual who "directs, supervises, or evaluates the work activities of the employee," even if that individual lacks formal authority to hire, fire, promote, or demote. This statutory language captures team leads, project coordinators, and informal supervisors who exercise day-to-day direction over an employee's tasks but do not hold traditional management titles or authority to take tangible employment actions. The statute also covers individuals who "undertake or recommend" tangible employment actions — the latter extending liability to those who merely recommend (but do not finalize) personnel decisions affecting the complainant.
Elimination of the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense
Maryland law does not incorporate the two-part affirmative defense recognized under federal Title VII in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). Under those Supreme Court decisions, an employer facing a hostile-environment harassment claim by a supervisor (absent a tangible employment action) may avoid liability by proving: (1) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment; and (2) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. Maryland's statutory scheme omits this defense entirely for harassment by individuals meeting the § 20-611(a)(1) definition. Once the complainant establishes that harassment occurred and was perpetrated by someone who directs, supervises, or evaluates the employee's work, the employer is liable — regardless of whether the employer maintained strong anti-harassment policies, provided training, or took prompt corrective action after learning of the conduct.
Negligence-based liability for non-supervisor harassment
For harassment by co-workers or other individuals who do not meet the supervisor definition, § 20-611(a)(2) imposes liability if "the negligence of the employer led to the harassment or continuation of harassment." This mirrors the common-law negligence standard applied under federal Title VII for co-worker harassment: the employer is liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, effective remedial action. The employer's knowledge may be actual (a direct complaint) or constructive (the harassment was so pervasive or open that the employer reasonably should have discovered it through ordinary supervision).
Application to independent contractors
Maryland's 2019 amendments also expanded the definition of "employee" in § 20-601(d) to include "an individual working as an independent contractor for an employer." Consequently, the strict-liability and negligence-based harassment standards in § 20-611 apply equally to harassment of independent contractors, not solely to common-law employees. This is a significant departure from federal Title VII, which limits coverage to employees and does not protect independent contractors from workplace harassment.
Practical implications
The elimination of the Faragher/Ellerth defense shifts risk decisively onto Maryland employers. Training programs, written policies, and prompt investigation — while still best practices for preventing harassment and mitigating other forms of liability (including potential punitive damages) — do not insulate an employer from liability when the harasser directed, supervised, or evaluated the complainant's work. Employers evaluating settlement posture or litigation risk in Maryland harassment cases should not analogize to federal hostile-environment standards that permit an affirmative defense; Maryland law forecloses that path.
Source: Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-611; Md. State Gov't Code Ann. § 20-601(d)