Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2662 September Term, 2003

STATE OF MARYLAND COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS v. BALTIMORE CITY DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS

Murphy, C.J., Adkins, Sharer, JJ.

Opinion by Adkins, J.

Filed: December 1, 2005

The

State

of

Maryland

Commission to have

on the

Human

Relations City

("Commission"),

appellant,

sought

Baltimore

Department of Recreations and Parks ("City"), appellee, found in civil contempt of court for failure to make agreed-upon The Circuit

modifications to a place of public accommodation.

Court for Baltimore City denied the petition for contempt, and the Commission now challenges several rulings made by the circuit court during the contempt hearing. We shall hold that the settlement

agreement sought to be enforced is void, and remand to the circuit court for further remand to the administrative agency. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS On July 25, 1997, Robert Reuter, a disabled individual, filed a complaint of discrimination with the Commission against the City. Reuter, who is wheelchair-bound, alleged that he could not access several parts of the Cylburn Arboretum and Mansion, a place of public accommodation operated by the City. The Commission

investigated the claim, and thereafter issued a written finding of probable cause to believe that the City violated Md. Code (1957, 2003 Repl. Vol. 2005 Cum. Supp.), Article 49B, section 5(b), by maintaining and operating a place of public accommodation that was inaccessible to those who use wheelchairs. When conciliation

efforts between the Commission and the City failed, the matter was certified for public hearing. On May 24, 2000, the Commission filed a Statement of Charges and a Request for Public Hearing with the Office of Administrative

Hearings ("OAH"), alleging that the City had engaged in an unlawful public accommodations practice. OAH then served the City with a

copy of the Statement of Charges, along with a notice to appear at a pre-hearing conference. The City was directed to file an answer

within fifteen days of service and to file a pre-hearing statement no later than July 28, 2000. The City filed neither.

On August 4, 2000, the parties appeared at the scheduled prehearing conference. Because the City had failed to file an answer

or a pre-hearing statement, the Commission moved for an order of default. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") ordered the City to

file an answer, and also scheduled a November 1, 2000 hearing on the Commission's motion for order of default. Finally, a public hearing on the merits was scheduled for December 5-6, 2000. Before the motions hearing, the Commission, Reuter, and the City entered into a settlement agreement. the City was required to modify the Under that agreement, Mansion, and

Arboretum,

grounds, including the garden playhouse, to make them wheelchair accessible by April 1, 2001. In addition, the City was required to

make the trails and bird collection accessible by June 30, 2002. OAH was notified that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement. The OAH then issued an order adopting the settlement agreement as its final order, and dismissed the Commission's action with prejudice. On November 20, 2001, because the City failed to make the

2

required changes to the Arboretum, Mansion, and grounds by the required date, the Commission filed a petition for judicial

enforcement of administrative order in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The City was served with a copy of the petition

for enforcement, but again failed to file an answer within the time allowed. On February 11, 2002, the City filed a late answer, in

which it admitted that the Commission was "technically correct" that the alterations were not completed. The next day, the

Commission, which had yet to receive the City's late answer, filed a motion for order of default. The Commission then moved to strike the City's late answer, or alternatively, for summary judgment, based on the City's admission that the required changes had not been made. response to the motion. The City filed no

On July 19, 2002, the circuit court issued

two orders, one granting the motion to strike the answer, and the other granting the motion for summary judgment. The City did not

move to alter or revise the summary judgment order; nor did it note an appeal. On January 23, 2003, the Commission filed a petition to cite the City for civil contempt because none of the required

alterations had been completed.

The circuit court issued a show

cause order, requiring the City to file an answer by June 2, 2003, and to show cause at a hearing on June 16, 2003, why it should not be adjudged in contempt. On June 2, 2003, the City filed a motion

3

to dismiss the petition for contempt. At the show cause hearing, the circuit court ruled that the settlement agreement was ultra vires, because it had not been approved by the Board of Estimates and the City Solicitor had not endorsed the contract, as required by the Baltimore City Charter. The court neither granted nor denied the Commission's petition for contempt, or the City's motion to dismiss the contempt proceedings, instead holding all matters sub curia. parties to negotiate a new agreement. ordered. The court then ordered the The parties conferred as

The City agreed to comply with most provisions of the

invalidated settlement agreement. It refused, however, to install a hard surface on the Circle Trail and stated that it planned to close the garden playhouse rather than install a ramp as previously agreed. On July 22, 2003, the judge who was hearing the matter met with both grounds. parties, then all adjourned to tour the Arboretum

The next day, the hearing reconvened, and the City

recited for the record those requirements it agreed to complete, and those to which it objected. Both parties submitted post-

hearing memoranda of law, and the City also filed a motion to vacate the order of summary judgment. On January 14, 2004, the hearing reconvened. After argument,

the circuit court reiterated that the settlement agreement was invalid and found that the construction of a hard surface on the

4

Circle Trail was not a reasonable accommodation, because it would impose an undue hardship. for The court (2) then (1) denied the the

Commission's

petition

contempt,

vacated

summary The

judgment order, and (3) ordered the Commission to pay costs.

Commission noted this timely appeal and presents the following questions for our review: I. Did the circuit court err in invalidating the settlement agreement, which was agreed to by all parties and halted the administrative process? Did the circuit court err in vacating the order for summary judgment when there was neither appeal of that order nor any timely motion to vacate?

II.

III. Did the circuit court err in finding that installing a hard surface on one trail at the Arboretum was not a reasonable accommodation? IV. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in assessing costs against the Commission?

We answer questions I and IV in the negative. We answer questions II and III in the affirmative, however, and accordingly, reverse the judgment on those issues. DISCUSSION As a threshold matter, we must address the City's motion to dismiss the Commission's appeal. The City argues that under Pack

Shack, Inc. v. Howard County, 371 Md. 243 (2002), the Commission has no right of appeal, because it failed in its attempt to have the City adjudged in contempt. 5

In Pack Shack, 371 Md. at 254, the Court of Appeals held that Md. Code (1973, 2002 Repl. Vol.), section 12-304 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article1 "clearly and unambiguously limits the right to appeal in contempt cases to persons adjudged in contempt." Therefore, as the "`party who unsuccessfully [sought] to have another party held in contempt,'" the Commission has no right to appeal the circuit court's denial of its petition for contempt. See id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not review the

circuit court's denial of the petition for contempt. The court, however, did not just deny the Commission's motion for contempt. It also invalidated the settlement agreement,

vacated the summary judgment order, and found that installing a hard surface on the Circle Trail was not a reasonable

Md. Code (1973, 2002 Repl. Vol.), section 12-304 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article states: Appeals in contempt cases. (a) Scope of review.

Download Human Relations v. Dept. of Parks.pdf

Maryland Law