Employee Not Entitled To Sue For Being Denied A Promotion
(October 2011) By Gregory L. Arbogast, Associate
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
Perry v. Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, No. 00763 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. October 27, 2011)
Perry v Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene is an employment
law appeal in which the Court denied Sandra Perry’s (“Ms. Perry”) claim to the
entitlement of a promotion. In Perry, the Court held that Ms. Perry did not have
a protectable interest in a job that she did not currently hold. Therefore, she
did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the Court found
that her employer’s motion to dismiss was properly granted.
Ms. Perry was employed at the Wicomico County Health
Department (“WCHD”) as an Agency Procurement Associate, level II. In January of
2009, Ms. Perry applied for a position as an Agency Procurement Specialist,
level II. Shortly thereafter, she was notified, along with other applicants for
the position, that no one met the minimum qualifications for the promotion and
the promotion was reclassified at the trainee level. On January 6, 2009, Ms.
Perry indicated that she would like to be considered for the position at the
trainee level, even though she was already at level II. The trainee level
position was later filled by another applicant. On April 15, 2009, Ms. Perry was
laid off from WCHD.
On July 2, 2009, Ms. Perry filed a grievance
challenging the denial of her application for promotion to the position of
Agency Procurement Specialist, level II. The agency scheduled a hearing on
her grievance before Lori Brewster, the Health Officer of the WCHD. Ms.
Brewster, however, denied Ms. Perry’s claim on the basis that her appeal did
not allege any illegal or unconstitutional action on the part of WCHD.
Ms. Perry appealed Ms. Brewster’s decision for judicial
review under Md. Rule 7-401 to the Circuit Court for Wicomico County. WCHD
filed a Motion to Dismiss Ms. Perry’s appeal on the basis that Ms. Perry
failed to allege sufficient facts to support the conclusion that she was
denied of a substantial right by WCHD’s actions. The Circuit Court granted
WCHD’s Motion to Dismiss. As a result thereof, Ms. Perry noted this appeal.
Md. Code Ann., State Pers. & Pens. § 7-201 limits
wrongful termination claims against employers to situations in which the
employee had a cognizable interest in the position. Therefore, the Court of
Special Appeals examined whether Ms. Perry had a constitutionally protected
and cognizable interest in the promotion for the level II position. Ms.
Perry claimed a constitutionally protected interest in the position because
she was already at the level II stage. She claimed that WCHD must have
improperly examined her application because it found that no one was
qualified for the level II position. The Court of Special Appeals, however,
found that no one has a constitutionally protected or cognizable interest in
a promotion. Otherwise, someone would have a protectable interest in a
position which that person did not actually hold.
The Court of Special Appeals also dismissed Ms. Perry’s
claim that WCHD improperly examined her application. The Court held that the
employment statutes do not permit an employee to sue for failure to get a
promotion based upon negligent acts. Therefore, the Court of Special Appeals
refused to examine whether WCHD was negligent in failing to give Ms. Perry
the promotion. Based on its findings that Ms. Perry did not have a
constitutionally protected and cognizable interest in the promotion, the
Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s grant of WCHD’s Motion
to Dismiss.