Whistleblower Wrongful Termination in DC and Maryland

Wrongful Termination for Whistleblowing: A Common-Law Safety Net

Beyond the specific federal statutes described on our Whistleblower Protection Law overview, both DC and Maryland recognize a common-law claim for wrongful termination when an employee is fired in violation of public policy — including for whistleblowing-related conduct. This claim exists independently of, and can sometimes fill gaps left by, the federal statutes covered elsewhere on this site.

The General Rule: At-Will Employment

Both DC and Maryland are “at-will” employment jurisdictions, meaning that in the ordinary case, an employer can fire an employee at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. Wrongful termination claims are a narrow exception to this general rule — they don’t apply broadly to any termination that feels unfair, only to terminations motivated by specific, legally protected conduct.

DC: Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co.

DC first recognized this exception in a 1991 case, Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., involving a delivery driver fired for refusing to drive a truck without a legally required inspection sticker. To bring a claim, you generally need to show:

You were an employee of the employer
You experienced an adverse employment action (termination, or in some cases other significant discipline)
Your protected conduct was a motivating or substantial factor in the employer’s decision

DC courts have generally recognized three categories of protected conduct that can support this kind of claim: refusing to engage in illegal conduct, exercising a legal right, and reporting the illegal conduct of an employer or coworker — in other words, classic whistleblowing.

Remedies for a successful DC wrongful termination claim can include lost wages and benefits, compensation for emotional distress, and punitive damages, since this is a tort claim rather than a statutory one.

Maryland: Adler v. American Standard Corp., and Its Real Limits

Maryland recognized a similar exception a decade earlier, in the 1981 case Adler v. American Standard Corp. But Maryland’s version comes with a significant limitation that DC’s doesn’t share as clearly, and it’s worth understanding before assuming this claim is available to you.

The “otherwise unremedied” requirement. Maryland courts have held that this claim is available only to vindicate a violation of public policy that would “otherwise go unremedied” — meaning if a specific statute already provides a remedy for your situation (Title VII, the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act, or a specific whistleblower statute, for example), you generally cannot bring a separate common-law wrongful discharge claim on top of it. However, Maryland courts have also recognized an important exception: if the statute that would normally apply doesn’t actually cover your situation — for example, because your employer has fewer than 15 employees and falls outside FEPA’s coverage — the common-law claim can still proceed, since without it, the violation truly would go unremedied.

A genuine, evolving wrinkle around internal reporting. Maryland courts have historically drawn a distinction between reporting suspected wrongdoing internally (to a supervisor or company official) versus externally (to law enforcement or an appropriate government official) — with internal-only reporting traditionally not considered sufficient to support a whistleblowing-based wrongful discharge claim. There’s some indication in more recent Maryland case law, particularly in the health care context, that this may be evolving, but it isn’t settled outside that specific setting. This means how, and to whom, you reported the conduct you’re relying on can genuinely matter to whether you have a viable claim.

Like DC, this is a tort claim under Maryland law, so a successful plaintiff can recover punitive damages in addition to lost wages and other compensatory damages. One additional limitation worth knowing: Maryland courts have held that independent contractors cannot bring this type of claim — it’s available only to employees.

Why This Claim Still Matters Even With Federal Statutes Available

Given the significant patchwork of federal whistleblower statutes described on our overview page, it’s fair to ask why a common-law claim matters at all. A few reasons:

Not every act of whistleblowing fits neatly into one of the specific federal statutes — the common-law claim can fill genuine gaps
In Maryland specifically, it can provide a remedy where a statute exists in theory but doesn’t cover your particular employer or situation
As a tort claim, punitive damages may be available in ways that some statutory schemes don’t allow

Talk to a Wrongful Termination Attorney

Whether a wrongful termination claim is available to you — and whether it’s your best option compared to a specific federal statute — depends heavily on the details of what you reported, how you reported it, and what other laws might apply to your employer. Wilkenfeld Law Office can help you sort through which path fits your situation.

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: August 28, 2026.