Strict Liability for Pit Bulls

On April 26, 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals held in Tracey v. Solesky that anyone with the ability to limit the presence on their property of a pit bull or mixed-breed pit bull is subject to strict liability in the event that the dog bites a human. This is a drastic departure from the previous common law, which had placed the burden on the plaintiff to proof that a dog that bites a person had a history of aggression. The new ruling is unique in that it singles out a specific breed, a stance adopted by some local municipalities and counties across the country but never by a state supreme court. The dissent in the case pointed out a few flaws with the courts reasoning, including that the opinion did not specify what defines a pit bull (the term actually has been used to describe a number of breeds) or the degree to which any individual dog is a pit bull (regarding the percentage of breed).

The case has implications for dog owners, business owners, and residential and commercial landlords. Dog owners may find themselves subject to additional lease terms if they possess lease terms, or may find themselves unable to obtain a lease while owning a pit bull. Some animal advocates have postulated that the ruling will lead to record numbers of bully breed dogs being surrendered to animal shelters, which in turn will be unable to adopt out the dogs because of stigma associated with the breeds. Additionally, concern has been raised that dogs of suspect breed - as there are many breeds which are confused with pit bulls - may be unfairly judged and surrendered.

Tracey v. Solesky placed strict liability on landlords as well as pit bull owners. Landlords have the ability to restrict what breeds of dogs are present on their property; as such, the court has held that landlords have a burden to determine what breed of dog is on their property. Landlords may want to pursue stringent intake for pet owners, including training employees to recognize pit bulls. Additionally, landlords who choose to allow pit bulls on their property may want to request additional insurance from tenants.

One group that the opinion neglects to consider is the small business owner who holds a commercial lease. Veterinarians, dog groomers, pet food stores, and other businesses that cater to dog owners and welcome dogs onto their property could be held to strict liability for the presence of pit bulls on their property. Small business owners have less liberty to limit who enters their business, but could possibly be held responsible for attacks that occur during ingress and egress from their property. Negotiation of commercial leases for these businesses may include provisions regarding pit bull liability.

Maryland grocery stores and liquor sales

From the Baltimore Sun: Groceries seeking ways around wine sales ban

Wegman's Liquor License Hearing Continued

From the Baltimore Sun: Wegman's Liquor License Hearing

Columbia Bridge

From the Baltimore Sun: Bridge to unite Columbia villages seen as crucial for town

Maryland Bans Employers from Requesting Social Media Passwords

From Gizmodo: http://gizmodo.com/5900609/maryland-bans-employers-from-requesting-social-media-passwords-good-job-maryland

Gender Discrimination

On December 5, 2011, Howard County's Council passed a bill protecting individuals from discrimination based on gender identity. Similar legislation was passed in Baltimore County, as well as Baltimore City and Montgomery County. Baltimore Outloud reported that:

"The four council members who voted for the bill were Democrats Mary Kay Sigaty, Jen Terrasa, Calvin Ball (Council Chair) and Courtney Watson. Greg Fox, a Republican from Western Howard County, voted against the measure saying that the federal and state governments should pass a single law that clarifies the definition of public accommodations. The county law, as written, is vague on the definition."

Maryland Senate Bill 212 is designed to provide a comprehensive law protecting gender identity throughout Maryland. The bill prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, housing, and employment and by specified licensed or regulated persons. The bill is not without it's opponents, and at a recent committee hearing, Metro Weekly reported that number of legislators left the room.

Earlier this month, Metro Weekly wrote about the impetus for the Maryland bill:

"Some advocates cited the case of Chrissy Lee Polis, a transgender woman who was savagely beaten after using a restroom in a Baltimore-area McDonald's in Rosedale, Md. in April 2011, as evidence of hostility facing transgender women. Polis's attack was recorded on a cell phone camera and later posted on the Internet, where she was subjected to verbal attacks from online viewers, including the employee who posted the video."

Employment Law -- Discrimination and Administrative Appeals

Taylor Legal recently represented a client in an administrative appeal of a negative employment action imposed by the Howard County Public School System.  Through a careful review of the client’s personnel record and detailed meetings with the client to review the facts of the case, a considered, respectful argument was presented to the Superintendent’s designee explaining why the employment action was unfair – it was retaliatory and a potential violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The action against the employee was rescinded.

Employment discrimination cases can be difficult to argue and even more difficult to win.  The facts need to support that the employer’s motivation was legally improper.  Unfortunately, employers often can articulate non-discriminatory reasons for a negative employment action (poor review, suspension, termination, or other discipline), so it can be complicated to parse out and prove an illegal motivation.  However, following in-depth discussion and review with a client, an attorney can hopefully get to the heart of the matter and establish a narrative that shows that an employer was acting in a harassing, retaliatory, and/or discriminatory manner.

The legal requirements for employment cases cannot be generalized because they depend in large part on the particular contractual rights of the employee.  Some employer behaviors, however, are simply not permitted, for example racial, gender or age discrimination or violations of the ADA.  When claiming discrimination, a current or former employee typically has the burden of proof and, as an initial matter, must make a basic showing that there is reason to believe that an illegal act has occurred.  For example, the employee may be a member of a racial minority and was terminated or may be over the age of 50 and was not hired for a job he or she was qualified for.  The employer can counter the employee's claims by establishing that the employer had a non-discriminatory reason for making the contested employment decision – the terminated employee was incompetent; the non-hired applicant was competing against individuals with more impressive credentials.  The employee then has the opportunity to show that the employer’s defense is pretextual, a rouse to cover a truly illegal motive – the terminated employee was consistently evaluated as superior; the person hired instead of the older applicant did not have more extensive credentials.

When dealing with harassment or retaliation, it may be critical to show a pattern of behavior or a suspect motive to undermine any argument that an employer may make about the validity of a negative action.

All cases are very fact-specific and very much depend on a detailed development of events and behaviors.

Typically, when a government agency is the employer, after an initial review by the supervisor of the employee or prospective employee, the next step is an appeal to an agency representative, for example the University President or the COO of a school system.  If that appeal is unsuccessful, there may be additional levels within the agency to appeal to or an outside appeal to the State Office of Administrative Hearings or the Circuit Court may be appropriate.  It depends on the specifics of the employer's contract and the agency's rules and regulations.  EEOC or local watchdog agency involvement (like the Howard County Office for Human Rights) are also possible, sometimes necessary steps.  When feasible, attorney assistance at the earliest stage is preferable, to ensure that no deadlines are missed and that the fullest record is created for appeal.