Maryland Transportation Authority v. King
Decision Date | 10 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 17,17 |
Citation | 799 A.2d 1246,369 Md. 274 |
Parties | MARYLAND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY v. Wyatt KING. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Andrew H. Baida, Sol. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen. of MD and Gisele M. Mathews, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
Hillary Galloway Davis (Davis & Associates Law Offices, P.A., on brief), Towson, for respondent. Laurence B. Russell, Carla N. Bailey, Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver, P.C., Baltimore, on brief of amici curiae, Public Justice Center and the Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
In this action for judicial review of an adjudicatory administrative decision, a former employee of the Maryland Transportation Authority challenges the administrative decision terminating his employment with the Authority. The former employee claims that the Authority, in discharging him instead of imposing a lesser sanction for his misconduct, failed to follow its own regulations. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City rejected the former employee's arguments and upheld the decision terminating his employment. The Court of Special Appeals, however, held that the Authority had not "complied with its own regulations," that "the penalty imposed, i.e., termination, was disproportionate to the offense," and that the misconduct was not "so serious as to warrant dismissal." The appellate court directed that the trial We shall hold that the Court of Special Appeals' decision in this case went beyond the proper role of a court in reviewing the action of an administrative agency. Accordingly, we shall reverse the Court of Special Appeals' decision and direct that the Circuit Court's judgment be affirmed.
The Maryland Transportation Authority is a unit of the Maryland Department of Transportation, which is a cabinet-level principal department in the executive branch of the state government and is headed by the Secretary of Transportation. In 1987, the respondent Wyatt E. King commenced employment in the Traffic Management and Police Services Division of the Maryland Transportation Authority as a Police Communications Operator I. The Authority promoted King to the position of Telecommunications Supervisor I in 1989, and he remained in that capacity until his discharge from employment. King's duties in the position included accessing confidential information from the Criminal Justice Information System and the Motor Vehicle Administration records.
In June 1997, the Executive Secretary of the Authority requested an Assistant Attorney General to conduct an investigation into various allegations of misconduct within the Traffic Management and Police Services Division. As a result of this investigation and the Assistant Attorney General's report, the respondent King on February 2, 1998, was suspended from his position as a Telecommunications Supervisor I pending charges for termination of his employment with the Authority. King appealed the suspension, and a suspension hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Office of Administrative Hearings. A final administrative decision was rendered on March 10, 1998, by the Department of Budget and Management, upholding King's suspension.
In the meantime, the administrative proceedings for termination of King's employment had commenced. The Authority, on February 17, 1998, filed charges against King and sought both termination of his employment and an order disqualifying him from future employment with the Authority. The charges were filed under COMAR 11.02.08.06, Termination of a Career Service Employee, which in pertinent part provides:
(6) The employee has violated any statute, regulation, executive order, written policy, written directive, or written rule;
* * *
(11) The employee has been wantonly offensive toward other employees, supervisors or members of the public;
* * *
(16) The employee has willfully made a false official statement or report;
The specific factual allegations against King were as follows:
The charges against King were initially heard by an ALJ of the Office of Administrative Hearings in October 1998. After the hearing, however, it was discovered that the audiotape record of the hearing was incomplete because of a malfunction in the recording equipment. Therefore a second de novo hearing, before a different ALJ (Judge Joan C. Ross) took place in June 1999.
In September 1999, ALJ Ross filed a comprehensive opinion, containing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which she found that the Authority had proven all of the charges except for the charge under COMAR 11.02.08.06B(21), relating to King's interactions with the Baltimore City Police Department growing out of the shooting incident. The ALJ concluded that King's employment should be terminated and that he should be disqualified from future employment with the Authority. As to King's argument that the applicable regulations provided for progressive discipline prior to termination, Judge Ross stated:
Subsequently, the Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management adopted the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law and "concur[red] with Judge Ross's determination that such behavior [by King] is sufficient to warrant removal ... and disqualification from future employment." A final order to this effect was issued by the Department of Budget and Management.
King filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City an action for judicial review of the administrative decision, pursuant to the judicial review provisions of the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act, Maryland Code (1984, 1999 Repl.Vol.), § 10-222 of the State Government Article. Following oral argument, the Circuit Court (Heller, J.) issued an opinion and order which rejected King's legal arguments, held that the administrative findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, and affirmed the administrative decision.
King took an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing, inter alia, that the ALJ's findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence, that the administrative decision was arbitrary and capricious, and that termination of his employment instead of a lesser sanction was inconsistent with the agency's progressive discipline regulation and, consequently, violated the so-called Accardi doctrine.1 The Court of Special Appeals, in an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Madison Park N. Apartments, L.P. v. Comm'r Housing
...of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.” Murrell, supra, 376 Md. at 196–97, 829 A.2d 548;see also Md. Transp. Auth. v. King, 369 Md. 274, 287, 799 A.2d 1246 (2002). During oral argument, the Commissioner directed us to Hecht v. Crook, 184 Md. 271, 40 A.2d 673 (1945) and Heaps v. Cob......
-
Murrell v. City of Baltimore
...argues that the substance of the circuit court action was a common law mandamus action. See also Maryland Transportation Authority v. King, 369 Md. 274, 287, 799 A.2d 1246, 1253 (2002) ("mandamus or other traditional actions may lie to enforce administrative compliance with procedural requi......
-
Pollock v. Patuxent Institution Board of Review
...rules, regulations and procedures." Hebbville, 369 Md. at 455, 800 A.2d at 777.11 In our recent case of Maryland Transportation Authority v. King, 369 Md. 274, 799 A.2d 1246 (2002), Judge Eldrige discussed the Accardi doctrine and general principles of Maryland administrative law, and state......
-
Genon Mid-Atlantic, LLC v. Md. Dep't of the Env't
...regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly in order." Id. (quoting Md. Transp. Auth. v. King , 369 Md. 274, 799 A.2d 1246 (2002) ). We accord agencies deference in interpreting their own regulations because of their expertise in their regulatory space:[A]ge......