Background
Joseph Watts, a correctional officer for the Prince George’s County Department of Corrections, underwent amputation of his left foot after an infection. He alleged that the Department discriminated against him in connection with his efforts to return to work and ultimately fired him for failing to comply with requirements he asserted were discriminatory. Watts sued the County for disability discrimination under two separate legal theories — the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA) and § 20-1202 of the State Government Article (which creates a state cause of action for violations of the Prince George’s County Code’s anti-discrimination provisions) — as well as for retaliation under MFEPA.
A jury found for Watts and awarded $1,700,000 in total damages. The trial court applied the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA) damages cap of $400,000 and reduced the judgment accordingly. The Appellate Court reversed in full, concluding that the LGTCA cap on “tortious acts or omissions” does not reach statutory discrimination and retaliation claims. The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Maryland, in an opinion by Chief Judge Fader, affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court held that MFEPA claims are not subject to the LGTCA damages cap. MFEPA is a comprehensive statutory scheme that expressly contemplates claims against local governments and mandates that those claims be treated the same as claims against private employers; its own tiered compensatory damages cap (up to $300,000 for employers with 501 or more employees) therefore controls, not the LGTCA’s general $400,000 cap. Specific legislative provisions governing local government liability in MFEPA take precedence over the LGTCA’s general provisions.
However, the Court parted ways with the Appellate Court on the § 20-1202 claim. That statute — enacted by the General Assembly to remedy the constitutional defect identified in McCrory Corp. v. Fowler — is a narrow provision that creates a cause of action for county-code discrimination violations without addressing the extent or scope of local government liability in any specific way. Because the General Assembly made no determination in § 20-1202 concerning local government liability, the LGTCA’s general damages cap applies to claims brought under it. On remand, the circuit court was directed to enter judgment for Watts based on whichever produces the higher recovery: (1) his MFEPA claims subject to the MFEPA cap, or (2) his § 20-1202 claim subject to the LGTCA cap.
Key Takeaways
- The LGTCA damages cap does not apply categorically to all state statutory claims; it applies to statutory claims that sound in tort unless a more specific statutory scheme reflects a legislative determination about local government liability.
- MFEPA’s own damages framework — not the LGTCA — governs employment discrimination and retaliation suits against local governments because MFEPA explicitly requires local governments to be treated the same as private employers and establishes its own damages limits.
- Claims under State Government § 20-1202 (enforcing county anti-discrimination ordinances) are subject to the LGTCA cap because § 20-1202 is not a comprehensive scheme and contains no specific provisions addressing local government liability.
- Where discrimination claims are combined on a verdict form, courts on remand must parse out which claims fall under which cap and apply whichever produces the higher award for the plaintiff.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes a significant framework for evaluating which damages cap governs when a plaintiff sues a Maryland local government under a state antidiscrimination statute. The key question going forward is whether the statute at issue is a “comprehensive statutory scheme” that specifically addresses local government liability — if so, that scheme’s own limits displace the LGTCA’s general cap. This distinction has direct financial consequences: MFEPA’s $300,000 cap on non-economic compensatory damages is separate from and in addition to back pay awards, while the LGTCA’s $400,000 cap applies to the total judgment per individual claim.
For employment lawyers, the ruling clarifies that plaintiffs bringing disability discrimination claims against local governments should prioritize MFEPA theories to escape the LGTCA’s general cap, and that the county-code/§ 20-1202 path provides a more limited remedy. For local government defendants, the decision confirms that MFEPA strips them of one significant litigation tool — the LGTCA cap — while leaving it available against the narrower § 20-1202 cause of action.