wrongful discharge claim in Maryland

2005Co., 322 Md. 467 , 588 A.2d 760 (1991) (deciding that employee could not be fired for seeking legal redress from co-worker for sexual-harassment); Ewing, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (concluding that employee could not be fired for filing worker's compensation claim); De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 292 Md. 498 , 438 A.2d 1348 (1982) (deciding that wrongful discharge action will lie for terminating an employee for exercising his First Amendment rights); Bleich v. Florence Crittenton Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 98 Md.App. 123 , 632 A.2d 463 (1993) (permitting a wrongful discharge claim lo

2005Co., 322 Md. 467 , 588 A.2d 760 (1991) (deciding that employee could not be fired for seeking legal redress from co-worker for sexual-harassment); Ewing, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (concluding that employee could not be fired for filing worker's compensation claim); De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 292 Md. 498 , 438 A.2d 1348 (1982) (deciding that wrongful discharge action will lie for terminating an employee for exercising his First Amendment rights); Bleich v. Florence Crittenton Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 98 Md.App. 123 , 632 A.2d 463 (1993) (permitting a wrongful discharge claim lo

2011Insignia Residential Corp., 359 Md. at 561-562 , 755 A.2d at 1080-1081 . [8] To the extent that Ms. Parks has argued that cases from other jurisdictions and the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland support her claims that internal reports of employer misconduct are sufficient to constitute a wrongful discharge claim, or that adequate alternative remedies do not preclude her wrongful discharge claim in the instant case, we are not addressing those claims, nor the cases cited therein, for we affirm the circuit court's dismissal solely on the ground that Ms. Parks failed to identif

2011Insignia Residential Corp., 359 Md. at 561-562 , 755 A.2d at 1080-1081 . [8] To the extent that Ms. Parks has argued that cases from other jurisdictions and the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland support her claims that internal reports of employer misconduct are sufficient to constitute a wrongful discharge claim, or that adequate alternative remedies do not preclude her wrongful discharge claim in the instant case, we are not addressing those claims, nor the cases cited therein, for we affirm the circuit court's dismissal solely on the ground that Ms. Parks failed to identif

2011In Szaller v. American National Red Cross, 293 F.3d 148 (4th Cir.2002), a Red Cross employee filed a wrongful discharge claim after allegedly being fired for reporting to a Red Cross hotline his suspicions that his co-workers and supervisors were engaging in "various blood handling and staff training deficiencies." Id. at 150 .

2011In Szaller v. American National Red Cross, 293 F.3d 148 (4th Cir.2002), a Red Cross employee filed a wrongful discharge claim after allegedly being fired for reporting to a Red Cross hotline his suspicions that his co-workers and supervisors were engaging in "various blood handling and staff training deficiencies." Id. at 150 .

2011Rather, we are left with Ms. Parks's naked allegation that Alpharma was violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, a claim identical to that rejected in Adler , being far "too general, too conclusory, too vague, and lacking in specifics" to establish that Alpharma contravened a clear mandate of public policy. 291 Md. at 44 , 432 A.2d at 471 .

2011Rather, we are left with Ms. Parks's naked allegation that Alpharma was violating the Federal Trade Commission Act, a claim identical to that rejected in Adler , being far "too general, too conclusory, too vague, and lacking in specifics" to establish that Alpharma contravened a clear mandate of public policy. 291 Md. at 44 , 432 A.2d at 471 .

2005Co., 322 Md. 467 , 588 A.2d 760 (1991) (deciding that employee could not be fired for seeking legal redress from co-worker for sexual-harassment); Ewing, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (concluding that employee could not be fired for filing worker's compensation claim); De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 292 Md. 498 , 438 A.2d 1348 (1982) (deciding that wrongful discharge action will lie for terminating an employee for exercising his First Amendment rights); Bleich v. Florence Crittenton Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 98 Md.App. 123 , 632 A.2d 463 (1993) (permitting a wrongful discharge claim lo

2005Co., 322 Md. 467 , 588 A.2d 760 (1991) (deciding that employee could not be fired for seeking legal redress from co-worker for sexual-harassment); Ewing, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (concluding that employee could not be fired for filing worker's compensation claim); De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 292 Md. 498 , 438 A.2d 1348 (1982) (deciding that wrongful discharge action will lie for terminating an employee for exercising his First Amendment rights); Bleich v. Florence Crittenton Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 98 Md.App. 123 , 632 A.2d 463 (1993) (permitting a wrongful discharge claim lo

2005Co., 322 Md. 467 , 588 A.2d 760 (1991) (deciding that employee could not be fired for seeking legal redress from co-worker for sexual-harassment); Ewing, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (concluding that employee could not be fired for filing worker's compensation claim); De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 292 Md. 498 , 438 A.2d 1348 (1982) (deciding that wrongful discharge action will lie for terminating an employee for exercising his First Amendment rights); Bleich v. Florence Crittenton Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 98 Md.App. 123 , 632 A.2d 463 (1993) (permitting a wrongful discharge claim lo

2005Co., 322 Md. 467 , 588 A.2d 760 (1991) (deciding that employee could not be fired for seeking legal redress from co-worker for sexual-harassment); Ewing, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (concluding that employee could not be fired for filing worker's compensation claim); De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 292 Md. 498 , 438 A.2d 1348 (1982) (deciding that wrongful discharge action will lie for terminating an employee for exercising his First Amendment rights); Bleich v. Florence Crittenton Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 98 Md.App. 123 , 632 A.2d 463 (1993) (permitting a wrongful discharge claim lo

2016Yuan counters with a reference to Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 776 F.3d 214 (4th Cir.2015) ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2868 , 192 L.Ed.2d 897 (2015), which he says holds “that it was reversible error to dismiss a complaint that did not cite a specific statute, since the complaint identified and pled illegal activities, contrary to public policy.” Our reading of Weidman is a little different.

2016Yuan counters with a reference to Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 776 F.3d 214 (4th Cir.2015) ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2868 , 192 L.Ed.2d 897 (2015), which he says holds “that it was reversible error to dismiss a complaint that did not cite a specific statute, since the complaint identified and pled illegal activities, contrary to public policy.” Our reading of Weidman is a little different.

2016Yuan counters with a reference to Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 776 F.3d 214 (4th Cir.2015) ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2868 , 192 L.Ed.2d 897 (2015), which he says holds “that it was reversible error to dismiss a complaint that did not cite a specific statute, since the complaint identified and pled illegal activities, contrary to public policy.” Our reading of Weidman is a little different.

2007Finch, 322 Md. at 207 , 586 A.2d at 1280 .

2007Finch, 322 Md. at 207 , 586 A.2d at 1280 .

2005Co., 322 Md. 467 , 588 A.2d 760 (1991) (deciding that employee could not be fired for seeking legal redress from co-worker for sexual-harassment); Ewing, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (concluding that employee could not be fired for filing worker's compensation claim); De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 292 Md. 498 , 438 A.2d 1348 (1982) (deciding that wrongful discharge action will lie for terminating an employee for exercising his First Amendment rights); Bleich v. Florence Crittenton Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 98 Md.App. 123 , 632 A.2d 463 (1993) (permitting a wrongful discharge claim lo

2005Co., 322 Md. 467 , 588 A.2d 760 (1991) (deciding that employee could not be fired for seeking legal redress from co-worker for sexual-harassment); Ewing, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (concluding that employee could not be fired for filing worker's compensation claim); De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 292 Md. 498 , 438 A.2d 1348 (1982) (deciding that wrongful discharge action will lie for terminating an employee for exercising his First Amendment rights); Bleich v. Florence Crittenton Servs. of Baltimore, Inc., 98 Md.App. 123 , 632 A.2d 463 (1993) (permitting a wrongful discharge claim lo

2003Vol.), Article 49B); Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621 , 672 A.2d 608 (1996) (finding that although the public policy against employment discrimination set forth in Md.Code (1957, 1998 Repl.Vol.), Art. 49B, § 14, applies only to employers of more than 15 employees, nonetheless employers with fewer than 15 employees may be sued for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy embodied in that statute); Ewing v. Koppers, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (recognizing a wrongful discharge claim predicated on the theory that the employee was discharged in retaliation for filing a worker's

2003Vol.), Article 49B); Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621 , 672 A.2d 608 (1996) (finding that although the public policy against employment discrimination set forth in Md.Code (1957, 1998 Repl.Vol.), Art. 49B, § 14, applies only to employers of more than 15 employees, nonetheless employers with fewer than 15 employees may be sued for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy embodied in that statute); Ewing v. Koppers, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (recognizing a wrongful discharge claim predicated on the theory that the employee was discharged in retaliation for filing a worker's

2003Vol.), Article 49B); Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621 , 672 A.2d 608 (1996) (finding that although the public policy against employment discrimination set forth in Md.Code (1957, 1998 Repl.Vol.), Art. 49B, § 14, applies only to employers of more than 15 employees, nonetheless employers with fewer than 15 employees may be sued for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy embodied in that statute); Ewing v. Koppers, 312 Md. 45 , 537 A.2d 1173 (1988) (recognizing a wrongful discharge claim predicated on the theory that the employee was discharged in retaliation for filing a worker's

2003The cases that have recognized a public policy suggested by a plaintiff include Insignia Residential Corp. v. Ashton, 359 Md. 560 , 755 A.2d 1080 (2000) (allowing a wrongful discharge claim based on the theory that an employee was wrongfully discharged for refusing to acquiesce in "quid pro quo” sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Maryland Code (1957, 1998 Repl.Vol.), Article 49B); Molesworth v. Brandon, 341 Md. 621 , 672 A.2d 608 (1996) (finding that although the public policy against employment discrimination set forth in Md.Code (1957, 1998 Repl.V

2003Miller, 97 Md.App. at 337 , 629 A.2d at 1299 .

2003Miller, 97 Md.App. at 337 , 629 A.2d at 1299 .

2000It also ruled that the second claim was not legally viable because the public policy foundation for the tort claim was found in a statute that itself contained a remedy for vindicating those objectives. *239 On appeal, we held that the circuit court had erred in concluding that the first claim was preempted by federal law; we also held, however, that the court properly had dismissed the wrongful discharge claim because “the very statutes that [the plaintiff] relied on to establish her policy claim provided a remedy for her cause of action.” Id. at 715, 678 A.2d 615 (citations and footnote omit

2000In responding to the plaintiffs argument that the circuit court had abused its discretion in failing to grant her leave to amend (which, because of the disposition of the first issue, related only to the wrongful discharge claim), we explained that given that “there was nothing [the plaintiff] could have done within the scope of Rule 2-841(c) that would have made her complaint viable as to Count II[,]” the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing “that aspect of [her] claims without leave to amend.” Id. at 716 , 678 A.2d 615 .

1996And, in Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912 , 784 P.2d 1258 (1990), the Supreme Court of Washington held that a cause of action for wrongful discharge *635 was available based on a statute prohibiting age discrimination but providing no remedy.