![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
A Maryland appellate court held that, under an appropriate fact pattern, an employer that declines to renew an employment agreement with an injured worker for which the parties anticipated a reasonable possibility of renewal may be liable for a retaliatory discharge claim. Observing that it was a case of first impression, the appellate court noted that Maryland's courts had heretofore only applied the tort of wrongful termination to employees at will and to contractual employees within the time parameters of their employment agreements. Here the worker had been employed as a teacher and had ever expectation that his contract would be renewed. When he sent an email indicating that he would be applying for workers' compensation benefits in connection with his alleged PTSD condition, the school board, several months later, sent him a follow-up email indicating his contract would not be renewed.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Miller-Phoenix v. Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 2020 Md. App. LEXIS 507 (May 29, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 104.07.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.