Preview:

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Margaret A. Ross

No. 142 September Term, 2000

[Summary Judgment - Baltimore City employment dispute] Whether the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Mayor and City of Baltimore in a suit brought by former City employee, Margaret Ross, alleging an unconstitutional deprivation of her re-employment rights pursuant to the Baltimore City Charter and Baltimore City Civil Service Commission Rules was proper. The City challenges the decision of the Court of Special Appeals which We affirm the

reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in the City's favor.

decision of the Court of Special Appeals and hold that summary judgment was erroneously granted because the trial court misinterpreted the applicable City mandates regarding Ross's re-employment rights and because there exists a dispute of material fact as to whether the position for which Ross was placed on the re-employment list was filled by another employee in violation of the guarantees provided civil service employees.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 142 September Term, 2000

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. MARGARET A. ROSS

Bell, C.J. Eldridge Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia, JJ.

Opinion by Battaglia, J.

Filed: September 10, 2001

The issue before this Court involves the propriety of a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (hereinafter "the City") in a suit brought by former City employee, Margaret Ross, alleging an unconstitutional deprivation of her re-employment rights pursuant to the Baltimore City Charter and Baltimore City Civil Service Commission Rules. The City challenges the decision of the Court of Special Appeals which reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in the City's favor. We affirm the decision of the Court of Special Appeals and hold that summary judgment was erroneously granted because the trial court misinterpreted the applicable City mandates regarding Ross's re-employment rights and because there exists a dispute of material fact as to whether the position for which Ross was placed on the re-employment list was filled by another employee in violation of the guarantees provided civil service employees. I. Background A. Facts

Margaret Ross was employed by the Baltimore City Department of Planning from June 14, 1982 until June 28, 1996, when she was laid off because her position as City Planner Supervisor was to be abolished, ostensibly due to budget constraints for the upcoming fiscal year. Because Ross was a civil service employee, the Baltimore City Charter (hereinafter "Charter") and the Baltimore City Civil Service Commission Rules (hereinafter "Civil Service Rules") granted Ross placement on a re-employment list for one year. The re-employment

list guaranteed Ross absolute preferential hiring status for positions, for which she was similarly qualified, that became vacant within one year of her termination. Section 100(b) of

the Charter specifically provides that: "[e]ach person discharged for the purpose of reducing the force and without fault shall ... be placed on the eligible list... [and] shall have preference in the order of their seniority over others on the eligible list...." Baltimore City Charter, Art. VII

Download Baltimore v. Ross.pdf

Maryland Law