Wrongful Termination in Maryland

Wrongful Termination in Maryland: Abusive Discharge and Its Careful Limits

Maryland recognizes that an at-will employer cannot fire you for just any reason — but its courts police the boundaries of that principle more carefully than DC’s. Maryland calls the court-made claim “abusive discharge,” and understanding both what it covers and what it deliberately does not is the key to choosing the right legal route. For the general framework, see our Retaliation and Wrongful Termination overview.

The Statutory Routes Come First

As in DC, most Maryland wrongful-termination claims are statutory: a firing because of a protected trait violates the Fair Employment Practices Act; a firing for complaining violates its anti-retaliation provision (see our Workplace Retaliation page); and firings for reporting particular kinds of wrongdoing fall under the Whistleblower statutes. The familiar Maryland mechanics apply — MCCR charges within 300 days for most claims, employer coverage generally at 15 or more employees, and the $50,000–$300,000 federal-style damages caps for FEPA claims.

Abusive Discharge: The Court-Made Claim

Maryland’s Court of Appeals recognized the tort in Adler v. American Standard Corp. (1981): an at-will employee fired in a way that contravenes a clear mandate of public policy may sue in tort. The classic examples hold up — fired for refusing to commit an unlawful act, for performing an important public function like jury service, or for exercising a clear statutory right.

But two later decisions define the claim’s real shape. In Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams Co. (1989), the court held that abusive discharge is generally unavailable where the public policy comes from a statute that already provides its own remedy — you cannot use the tort to escape the procedures and caps of, say, the discrimination laws. And in Wholey v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (2002), the court confronted an employee fired for investigating suspected theft by a supervisor: it recognized a public policy protecting those who report suspected crimes to the authorities, but declined to extend the tort to purely internal investigation and reporting. The lesson of Wholey is uncomfortable but important: where you report can determine whether your firing is actionable.

What This Means in Practice

  • If a statute covers your situation, your claim almost certainly lives there — with its deadlines and procedures — not in tort. That is Makovi’s rule, and it makes early legal analysis essential.
  • If you refused to break the law, were penalized for jury or witness duty, exercised a clear statutory right, or reported suspected crime to law enforcement, the abusive-discharge tort is squarely available.
  • If you only reported internally, your protection depends on finding a statute that covers internal reports — several of the whistleblower laws do — which is exactly the kind of gap an attorney should map before anything is filed.
If conditions forced you to resign rather than wait to be fired, see our Constructive Discharge page — Maryland applies the same objective “intolerability” standard, and quitting without advice can cost you the claim.

What Compensation Can You Recover?

A successful abusive-discharge claim carries ordinary tort damages — lost wages, emotional distress, and in appropriate cases punitive damages — without FEPA’s caps, which is precisely why Maryland courts guard the doctrine’s boundaries. Statutory claims carry the remedies of their statutes. Choosing and sequencing the routes is strategy, not formality.

Frequently Asked Questions

Maryland’s name for the court-made wrongful-termination claim, recognized in Adler (1981): a firing that contravenes a clear mandate of public policy — refusing to commit an unlawful act, serving on a jury, exercising a clear statutory right — is actionable in tort even though employment is at will. Its boundaries are policed carefully, which is why route-mapping matters.

No — that is exactly what Makovi forbids. Where a statute supplies the public policy and its own remedy, the claim lives in the statute, with its procedures and caps. The tort exists for the gaps statutes leave, not as an escape hatch from them.

It can matter enormously. Wholey protects reports of suspected crime to the authorities but declined to extend the tort to purely internal reporting. Internal reporters must instead find a statute that covers internal reports — several whistleblower laws do — which is precisely the gap an attorney should map before anything is filed.

Bottom Line

Maryland’s wrongful-termination law rewards precision: the statutes come first, the tort fills the gaps, and cases are routinely lost by choosing the wrong route or reporting through the wrong channel. If you were fired for a reason the law does not allow — or pushed toward the exit for one — get the routes mapped before the 300-day clock closes the strongest of them.

Were You Wrongfully Terminated in Maryland?

If you were fired for reporting wrongdoing, exercising a legal right, or refusing to break the law, you may have a wrongful termination claim. Wilkenfeld Law Office can evaluate your circumstances, explain the protections available under Maryland law, and help you understand your legal options before important deadlines expire.
Schedule a consultation

Or call 301.245.3035 · Intake@WilkenfeldLO.com

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Reviewed by Ari Wilkenfeld, Esq. (DC Bar No. 461063; MD Bar No. 9806240300). Ari has over 27 years of experience litigating in federal and state courts, and before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and various arbitration panels. Ari has been recognized by Esquire Magazine as “a famously determined Civil Rights lawyer” and by the New York Post as “a high powered DC Lawyer.” Last updated: November 1, 2026.
Scroll to Top