Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 1102 September Term, 2003

BETTY FLAA v. MANOR COUNTRY CLUB

Hollander, Adkins, Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Barbera, J.

Filed: September 8, 2004

We are asked in this case to review the award of attorney's fees in a discrimination case filed more than ten years ago, with the Montgomery County Office of Human Rights ("MCOHR"),1 by The

appellant, Betty Flaa, against appellee, Manor Country Club.

award of attorney's fees has been the subject of two petitions for judicial review by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, the latter of which is now before us. In her first petition for judicial review, appellant contested the decision of the Montgomery County Public Accommodation Panel of the MCOHR ("Panel") to award her $3,000.00 in attorney's fees. The circuit court reversed that decision and remanded with

instructions for the Panel to apply the appropriate factors set forth in the county code for calculating a reasonable fee award. The Panel issued its second award of attorney's fees for

$22,440.00, and appellant, still aggrieved, filed a second petition for judicial review. The court subsequently affirmed the Panel's

award of attorney's fees. Appellant has appealed from the court's order affirming that award of attorney's fees. review: Whether the Montgomery County Circuit Court committed an error of law by affirming the Public Accommodations Panel's Order and Opinion Awarding Attorney's Fees, in which the Panel failed to apply the lodestar method in its calculation of attorney's fees and costs. She raises the following issue for our

At the time the underlying complaint was filed, the MCOHR was known as the Montgomery County Human Relations Commission.

1

Because we conclude that the Panel did not properly analyze the fee issue, we vacate the judgment of the circuit court affirming the Panel's decision and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Inasmuch as the underlying facts giving rise to appellant's discrimination claims against appellee are not the focus of this appeal, we shall not chronicle all of the details of those claims. We shall present only those facts necessary for context, and concentrate our attention upon the facts pertaining to appellant's request for attorney's fees. On December 23, 1993, appellant filed a marital status

discrimination claim with the MCOHR.

She averred that appellee's

policies, which restricted access to and use of appellee's golf course, were discriminatory on the basis of marital status and resulted in disparate treatment of her because of sex.2 Appellant

thereafter amended her claim to add a sex discrimination claim,

2 Appellant cited in her claim a specific incident in the spring of 1993 when appellant was playing golf with her husband, a member of the country club, and one other member, Mary Biswell. Concerning that incident, the hearing examiner found that

the Assistant Golf Pro, Larry Velt[o]n, came careening over the course in a golf cart and said to Col. Flaa: "You know women can't play on the golf course." He asked Ms. Biswell if she was a member. When she answered yes, he turned to Ms. Flaa and told her women don't belong on the course. He told her to pick up her ball and get off the course immediately. She was not allowed to finish the hole. The Panel adopted the hearing examiner's findings on this point.

-2-

asserting theories of disparate impact in the membership structure and hostile environment in appellee's indoor restaurant, known as the Grill Room. At about the same time, appellant, with others, filed a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, identifying the same claims and setting forth the same legal theories as those alleged in the MCOHR complaint. Attorney's General Office launched an After the into

investigation

appellant's claims, appellee modified numerous club policies to avoid potential prosecution for unlawful discriminatory practices. No formal charges were ever brought against appellee by the State. On January 6, 1997, following an investigation, MCOHR found reasonable grounds to believe that appellee was a place of public accommodation and had violated Montgomery County Code,

Download Flaa v. Manor Country Club.pdf

Maryland Law