Rowe v. Md. Comm'n on Civil Rights

1

JENNIFER ROWE v. MARYLAND COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

No. 17-2022

Maryland Supreme Court ^[*]

March 29, 2023

Argued: December 5, 2022

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 24-C-20-003503

Fader C.J. Watts Hotten Booth Biran Gould Eaves, JJ.

OPINION

BIRAN, J.

In this case, we consider whether judicial review of a no-probable-cause determination by the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (the "Commission") begins and ends at the circuit court, or whether the losing party in the circuit court may appeal the adverse judgment to the Appellate Court of Maryland. That determination turns on whether there is a statute that expressly authorizes appellate review of the circuit court's ruling.

Jennifer Rowe filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that her gym, Krav Maga MD, LLC ("KMMD"), engaged in disability discrimination by deleting a comment she had posted on KMMD's Facebook account relating to her disability, and by subsequently terminating her membership. After investigating, the Commission found no probable cause to believe that KMMD had discriminated against Ms. Rowe based on her disability. Ms. Rowe submitted a request for reconsideration of the Commission's determination, which the Commission denied.

Ms. Rowe then sought review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, filing a petition for judicial review of the Commission's denial of her motion for reconsideration. The circuit court affirmed the Commission's no-probable-cause finding. Ms. Rowe then noted an appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland (at the time, called the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland).^[1] The Appellate Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Ms. Rowe's appeal of the circuit court's ruling, concluding that no Maryland statute expressly grants the Appellate Court the authority to conduct such a review. For this reason, the Appellate Court dismissed Ms. Rowe's appeal. We affirm.

I Background

A. The Deletion of Ms. Rowe's Facebook Comment and Termination of Her Membership at KMMD

Ms. Rowe had been a member of KMMD, a mixed-martial arts training gym, for approximately two years before the events at issue in this case took place. Ms. Rowe signed a membership agreement when she joined the gym, which included a provision that KMMD "reserves the right to revoke or deny the membership of any member or guest for cause if member fails to keep and obey any of such rules and regulations, or for reasons of nuisance, disturbance of other members, moral turpitude or fraud." The provision further stated: "In no event shall member's behavior, demeanor, hygiene or attitude be in any way offensive, threatening, unsanitary or in any manner contrary to the best interest of the membership as a whole."

In February 2019, Ms. Rowe commented on a post in KMMD's private Facebook group. The original post asked why some people have negative attitudes despite having full use of their extremities. Ms. Rowe - who suffers from anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder - responded: "[b]ecause some of us have mental/emotional disabilities." KMMD staff determined that Ms. Rowe's comment violated the group's posting policies, and they deleted the comment. On a few occasions between February and June 2019, Ms. Rowe and KMMD staff communicated regarding the deletion of her comment.

On June 17, 2019, Ms. Rowe expressed concern about a comment one of KMMD's instructors made about left-handed gym members. She emailed several complaints to KMMD staff about that issue between June 17 and 27, 2019. Then, on June 27, 2019, Ms. Rowe emailed that she still felt "hurt and angry" about the deleted Facebook comment. KMMD's General Manager, Elisabeth Green, responded that, if Ms. Rowe remained dissatisfied about the deletion, Ms. Rowe could cancel her membership. Ms. Green also told Ms. Rowe that "our communication on this matter will cease and moving forward, be entirely restricted to your ongoing weekly membership, classes, belt testing, and any feedback or questions you have regarding the physical facility."

Ms. Rowe subsequently sent two more emails to Ms. Green and the Chief Executive Officer of KMMD, Jeff Mount, on June 27, and she also called the gym twice. In her second email, Ms. Rowe told Mr. Mount and Ms. Green that "[a]t this point it seems impossible to resolve this dispute via email." She stated, "I am willing to meet in person," but "[i]f you are not able or willing to do that, then I will contact Krav Maga Worldwide. If they cannot help, then I will have no choice but to initiate an inquiry with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights."

Later in the afternoon on June 27, Mr. Mount sent Ms. Rowe an email terminating her membership and banning her from the premises because, according to KMMD, she had violated her membership agreement by engaging in "disruptive, slanderous, [and] harassing" behavior.

B. Statutory Framework

Title 20 of the Maryland Code's State Government Article prohibits discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation. Md. Code, State Government Article ("SG") §§ 20-101(d)(1), 20-304 (2021 Repl. Vol.). That means an owner or operator of a place of public accommodation "may not refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of the place of public accommodation because of the person's race, sex, age, color, creed, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability." Id. § 20-304.

Under Subtitle 10 ("Enforcement"), a person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged discriminatory act may file a complaint with the Commission. Id. § 20-1004(a). The Commission then investigates the complaint, and the Commission's staff issues written findings. Id. §§ 20-1005(a)(1), (a)(3). What happens next depends on whether or not the Commission finds probable cause to believe that a discriminatory act has been or is being committed.

1. Procedures Following a Finding of Probable Cause

If - unlike in Ms. Rowe's case - the Commission finds probable cause to believe that a discriminatory act has been or is being committed, the Commission's staff "immediately shall endeavor to eliminate the discrimination by conference, conciliation, or persuasion." Id. § 20-1005(b). If an agreement cannot be reached, the Commission's staff must make a written finding to that effect and provide copies of the written finding to the complainant and the respondent. Id. § 20-1005(c)(2). On the making of a finding under § 20-1005(c)(2) that an agreement cannot be reached, the complaint is certified to the general counsel of the Commission, and written notice is issued and served in the name of the Commission, together with a copy of the complaint, requiring the respondent to answer the charges of the complaint at a public hearing before an administrative law judge. Id. § 20-1006.

The administrative law judge conducts the hearing in the county where the alleged discriminatory act occurred. Id. § 20-1008(a)(2). Testimony at the hearing is taken under oath and is recorded; a transcript is made of all such testimony. Id. § 20-1008(d). If, after reviewing all of the evidence, the administrative law judge finds that the respondent has engaged in a discriminatory act, the administrative law judge (1) issues a decision and order stating findings of fact and conclusions of law and (2) issues an order requiring the respondent to "cease and desist from engaging in the discriminatory acts ... and ... take affirmative action to effectuate the purposes of the applicable subtitle of this title." Id. § 20-1009(a). Various other remedies are also available if there is a finding that the respondent has engaged in a discriminatory act. See id. § 20-1009(b), (c).

If, after reviewing all of the evidence, the administrative law judge finds that the respondent has not engaged in an alleged discriminatory act, the administrative law judge states findings of fact and conclusions of law and issues an order dismissing the complaint. Id. § 20-1009(d).

Unless a timely appeal is filed with the Commission in accordance with the Commission's regulations, "a decision and order issued by the administrative law judge under this section shall become the final order of the Commission." Id. § 20-1009(e). The human relations statute is silent concerning judicial review of a final order issued under § 20-1009(e), but judicial review is available of such an order under the "contested cases" provisions of Maryland's Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"): SG § 10-222 (petition for judicial review filed in circuit court) and SG § 10-223 (appellate review in the Appellate Court of Maryland for a party aggrieved by circuit court decision issued under § 10-222). See State Comm'n on Hum. Rels. v. Kaydon Ring &Seal, Inc., 149 Md.App. 666, 690 (2003).

2. Procedures Following a Finding of No Probable Cause

Cases like Ms. Rowe's proceed differently. If, after investigation of the initial complaint, the Commission finds no probable cause to believe that a discriminatory act has been or is being committed, the complainant may file a request that the Commission reconsider its determination. Id. § 20-1005(d)(1). If the Commission denies that request for reconsideration and if the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not have jurisdiction over the complaint's subject matter, then "a denial of a request for reconsideration of a finding of no probable cause by the Commission is a final order appealable to the circuit court as provided in § 10-222 of [the State Government Article]." Id. § 20-1005(d)(2).

C. Ms. Rowe's Complaint

On June 28, 2019, Ms. Rowe filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that KMMD engaged in disability discrimination by deleting her Facebook...