Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1676 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1996

HEALTHCARE STRATEGIES, INC.

v.

HOWARD COUNTY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION et al.

Cathell, Davis, Byrnes, JJ.

Opinion by Cathell, J.

Filed: September 24, 1997

This appeal arises out of a complaint filed by Judith Carter, appellee, with the Howard County Office of Human Rights that alleged that she had been terminated from her position with

HealthCare Strategies, Inc., appellant, because of racial and gender discrimination. A hearing on that complaint was conducted

by the Howard County Human Rights Commission,1 which ruled in favor of Carter. Appellant sought judicial review of the Commission's The circuit

decision in the Circuit Court for Howard County.

court, however, dismissed appellant's petition because a transcript of the proceedings before the Commission had not been included in the record. Appellant has appealed that dismissal; it presents

two questions for our review, which we rephrase as follows: I. Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the circuit court's dismissal of appellant's petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision? II. Did the circuit court err in dismissing appellant's petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision? Because we do not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal that emanates from a decision of the Howard County Human Rights

Commission, we shall dismiss the appeal.

The Howard County Human Rights Commission and the Howard County Office of Human Rights are also appellees in the case sub judice. Pursuant to Maryland Rule 7-204, they elected to participate in appellant's appeal to the Circuit Court for Howard County. We shall refer to Carter, the Office of Human Rights, and the Human Rights Commission collectively as "appellees."

1

- 2 -

- 3 The Relevant Facts Judith Carter, appellee, was employed by HealthCare

Strategies, Inc., appellant, from April 6, 1992, through December 22, 1992. Immediately prior to her termination, Carter was on In accordance with appellant's maternity leave When Carter did not

maternity leave.

policy, this leave ended on December 18, 1992.

return to work or provide appellant with a medical reason why her leave should be extended, she was terminated for job abandonment. On March 10, 1993, Carter filed a complaint with the Howard County Office of Human Rights (OHR) alleging that she had been the victim of gender and racial discrimination. Following an

investigation, OHR found that there was "reasonable cause to believe that [Carter] was overtly discriminated against in her termination, based on her sex (female and pregnant)." OHR also

found that Carter was not discriminated against because of her race. The finding of "reasonable cause" as to the charge of gender discrimination was referred to the Howard County Human Rights Commission (HRC) for a hearing. Testimony was taken over the HRC

course of six evenings, all of which was recorded on tape. ultimately concluded that appellant had discriminated

against

Carter based upon gender, in violation of the Howard County Code. HRC further concluded that appellant's maternity leave policies discriminated against women, also in violation of the Howard County

- 4 Code. On June 30, 1995, appellant filed a petition for judicial review of HRC's decision in the Circuit Court for Howard County. This appeal was taken pursuant to section 12.212.V. of the Howard County Code, which authorizes appeals to the circuit court in accordance with the Maryland Rules of Procedure. In addition, rule

1.105.E.3 of the HRC Rules of Procedure, which applies to all cases before the HRC, states: The Human Rights Commission shall cause to be prepared an official record of its proceedings in each case, which shall include all testimony and exhibits, but it shall not be necessary to transcribe the testimony unless requested for court review, or when requested by any party in interest. The party requesting the transcript shall address such request to the Executive Secretary of the Commission, and shall pay the reporter in advance, the cost of transcribing the record. The reporter shall certify the accuracy of the transcript.[2] In Town of New Market v. Frederick County, 71 Md. App. 514, 517 (1987), we stated: As written, Rule [7-206(a)] is subject to at least two interpretations. One, the responsibility for transmitting the record to the clerk is expressly delegated to the agency. The agency, therefore, is obliged to obtain a transcript notwithstanding it may require the appellant to pay the costs thereof. Two, payment of the expense of transcription is ordinarily borne by the appellant; it is, therefore, incumbent upon appellant to initiate the process of obtaining a transcript. Clearly, Rule [7206(a)] places the responsibility for transmitting the record to the clerk of court upon the agency whose decision is being appealed. We think the onus is on the agency to forward to the clerk a complete record, since a record without the testimony is meaningless. [Citation omitted.] Under this interpretation, the filing of the petition for judicial (continued...)
2

- 5 -

In compliance with Maryland Rule 7-206(c), HRC transmitted the record to the circuit court within sixty days after being served with the petition for judicial review. Absent from the record,

however, was a transcript of the proceedings before the HRC. Because appellant never filed with HRC a request to prepare the transcript within the sixty-day window as required by rule

1.105.E.3, a transcript was not produced and, therefore, not included in the record transmitted to the circuit court. Before the circuit court, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that, without a transcript, the court could not conduct an on-the-record review of the HRC's decision. Following a hearing on the matter, the circuit court granted appellees' motion based upon the dictates of Maryland Rule 7-206. Appellant noted an appeal to this Court therefrom. Discussion We initially note that this is an administrative agency appeal. It It is not a case originally filed in the circuit court. at the agency, i.e., the executive/legislative

originated

(...continued) review is all that is necessary to put the agency on notice that a transcript must be produced and filed as part of the record. Whether HRC rule 1.105.E.3, which requires a petitioner to take an additional affirmative step in order to secure a transcript, conflicts with our prior decision or violates HRC's organic statute will have to await a case in which we have jurisdiction.

2

- 6 branch, and was appealed to the circuit court. all times acting in an appellate capacity. original jurisdiction. It must also always be remembered that this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. appeals, and we are We are only empowered to hear certain to explore whether we have That court was at

It was not exercising

obligated

jurisdiction over each matter and to halt any proceeding when we find it lacking. As it pertains to this case, our authority is

limited by Maryland Code (1973, 1995 Repl. Vol.),

Download Healthcare v. Howard County.pdf

Maryland Law