National Asphalt Pavement Ass'n, Inc. v. Prince George's County, 14
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Writing for the Court | Argued before MURPHY; ELDRIDGE |
| Citation | 292 Md. 75,437 A.2d 651 |
| Parties | , 59 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1688 NATIONAL ASPHALT PAVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 14,14 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1981 |
Page 75
v.
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland et al.
Page 76
James E. Fannon, Jr., District Heights (John F. Breads, Jr., and Hoyer, Fannon & Johnston, District Heights, on brief), for appellant.
Robert N. Stokes, Jr., Associate County Atty., Upper Marlboro (Robert B. Ostrom, County Atty., and Michael O. Connaughton, Deputy County Atty., Upper Marlboro, on brief), for appellees.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON and RODOWSKY, JJ.
ELDRIDGE, Judge.
The Maryland Legislature has enacted legislation designed to prohibit discrimination in employment, codified as Maryland Code (1957, 1979 Repl. Vol.), Art. 49B, §§ 14-18. Similarly, Prince George's County has enacted ordinances prohibiting employment discrimination, codified in Division 12, of subtitle 2, of the Prince George's County Code. We issued a writ of certiorari in this case to decide whether the state statutory provisions had preempted the matter of employment discrimination, thereby rendering invalid local laws, such as Prince George's County's, relating to the same subject.
The appellant, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Inc., is a Maryland Corporation located in Prince George's County. However, at no time has it employed as [437 A.2d 652] many as fifteen persons, and thus it is not an "employer" within the meaning of the state statute prohibiting employment discrimination.
Page 77
1 National Asphalt is, however, an "employer" for purposes of the Prince George's County law.A complaint was filed with the Prince George's County Human Relations Commission by Betty A. Alvino, charging that her employment with National Asphalt had been terminated because of sex discrimination. The Commission's staff investigated the complaint, although National Asphalt refused to cooperate with the investigation. Following the investigation, the Executive Director of the County Human Relations Commission, pursuant to § 2-204 of the Prince George's County Code, determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that the charge was true and certified the complaint to the Commission for a hearing. The hearing was scheduled for November 13, 1979.
Four days before the administrative hearing was to take place, National Asphalt instituted the present action in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. National Asphalt sought a declaratory judgment that the Prince George's County law pertaining to discrimination in employment was "invalid as being violative of the State law pertaining to discrimination in employment, which preempts the field." National Asphalt also sought an injunction restraining Prince George's County and county officials, including the Executive Director of the County Human Relations Commission, from conducting further proceedings against the plaintiff pursuant to the county law prohibiting employment discrimination. The parties agreed that the administrative hearings based upon Betty Alvino's complaint should be postponed pending the disposition of the present litigation. 2
Page 78
Thereafter, the circuit court (Mason, J.), issued a declaratory judgment that the challenged Prince George's County ordinance was not preempted by state law and, therefore, was not rendered invalid by the state law prohibiting employment discrimination. The circuit court also denied the request for an injunction. National Asphalt took an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, and this Court issued a writ of certiorari prior to argument in the intermediate appellate court. We shall affirm.
National Asphalt concedes that the Maryland General Assembly has not expressly preempted the area of employment discrimination. Instead, the appellant invokes the doctrine of "implied preemption" or "preemption by occupation." Such preemption exists if "the Legislature has acted with such force that an intent by the State to occupy the entire field must be implied ...," County Council v. Montgomery Ass'n, 274 Md. 52, 59, 333 A.2d 596 (1975).
On three occasions recently, this Court has held that county laws...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Consumer Protection Div. Office of Atty. Gen. v. Consumer Pub. Co., Inc.
...... an order of appeal from that judgment on March 14, 1984. . On March 21, 1984, the ... See, e.g., County Comm'rs of Carroll Co. v. Gross, 301 Md. 473, 483 ...Board of County Comm'rs for Prince George's County, 256 Md. 597, 604, 261 A.2d 447, ... its attention because it ranks second in national market share among mail order companies selling ... 225, 233, 449 A.2d 385 (1982); National Asphalt v. Prince Geo's Co., 292 Md. 75, 80, 437 A.2d 651 ......
-
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Com'n v. Crawford, MARYLAND-NATIONAL
...ebb and flow almost as many times as its name has been changed." 272 Md. at 575, 325 A.2d 740. Later, in National Asphalt v. Prince Geo's Co., 292 Md. 75, 437 A.2d 651 (1981), this Court held that, by enacting the employment discrimination provisions in the Human Relations Commission Articl......
-
Inlet Associates v. Assateague House Condominium Ass'n, 35
...provisions. See, e.g., Balto. Gas & Elec. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 305 Md. 145, 161, 501 A.2d 1307 (1986); National Asphalt v. Prince Geo's Co., 292 Md. 75, 80, 437 A.2d 651 (1981). But no custom, however venerable, can nullify the plain requirements of a statute or charter provision or otherw......
-
Beretta U.S.A. Corp. v. Santos, 1024
...counties the power to enact and enforce laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, see National Asphalt Pavement Assn', Inc. v. Prince George's County, 292 Md. 75, 80-81, 437 A.2d 651 (1981), the question for our determination is whether the County's compensatory provisions conflict wit......