Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 223 September Term, 2007

GIANT OF MARYLAND, LLC v. JULIA M. TAYLOR

Hollander, Eyler, Deborah S., * Sharer, J. Frederick (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Eyler, Deborah S., J.

Filed: * J. Frederick Sharer participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; he participated in the adoption of this opinion as a retired, specially assigned member of this Court.

Giant of Maryland, LLC ("Giant") appeals a judgment entered on a jury verdict in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County in favor of Julia M. Taylor, a former Giant employee, in an employment discrimination and retaliation case. After a seven-day trial, the jury found by special verdict that, during a particular time period ending on February 3, 2003, Giant discriminated against Taylor on the basis of her gender by requiring her to undergo an independent medical examination ("IME"). The February date was significant because that is when Taylor filed a discrimination charge against Giant with the Prince George's County Human Relations Commission. The jury further found, based on a retaliation charge Taylor filed against Giant on March 6, 2003, before the same body, that Giant had terminated her from employment for filing the February discrimination charge. The jury awarded Taylor $644,750 in compensatory damages. Giant poses a plethora of questions for review. We find merit in three of them, and shall reverse the judgment on those bases. The first question, paraphrased, is whether the circuit court erred in denying various motions filed by Giant on the ground that Taylor's claims were preempted by federal law, specifically, by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("the LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. section 185(a). The second and third questions are whether Giant's motion for judgment should have been granted on the ground that Taylor did not present legally sufficient evidence of a claim for discrimination or a claim for retaliation.1 We answer all three questions affirmatively.
1

These issues all are raised in Question I of the questions presented in Giant's brief. That question also asked whether the trial court erred in denying Giant's motion for judgment on liability based on the absence in the Prince George's County Code of a cause of action for (continued...)

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In 1988, Giant, a large grocery store chain based in Landover, hired Taylor to work full-time as a truck driver (officially called a tractor-trailer driver), delivering products to Giant's stores in Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. During her employment by Giant,

(...continued) retaliation. Given our disposition of this appeal, we need not address that issue; nor need we address Questions II, III, and IV, which as rephrased for clarity are: II. Did the trial court err by denying Giant's motion for judgment on damages made on the following grounds:

Download Giant v. Taylor.pdf

Maryland Law