The Complaint included several common law tort claims as well as a claim under Title VII and its Maryland analogue, the Fair Employment Practices Act (the "Act"), MD. CODE. ANN., STATE GOV'T §§ 20-101-1203. The Court granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment as a matter of law with respect to the Title VII claim, finding that TLM was not an "employer" covered by the statute. Nevertheless, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs and awarded damages on all but one of the remaining claims. The Defendants then renewed their Motion for Judgment as a matter of law, which the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted as to the Act.

The relevant facts were as follows. Mr. Adams began working for TLM in April 2007. On multiple occasions, Mr. Adams was sexually harassed by Timothy Morris. Mr. Bennett began working for TLM in May 2007. Mr. Bennett was also continuously sexually harassed by Timothy Morris. The Plaintiffs left TLM in June 2007.

After denying the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the State employment discrimination claim, but skeptical of the claim's durability, the Court employed a special verdict sheet that directed the jury to determine liability and to award damages on a claim-by-claim basis. Through this device, any damages based on the Act would be excised if subsequent briefing showed that no recovery under the Act was available. Ultimately, the jury found liability on assault, battery, and sexual harassment. The jury awarded $5,000 in compensatory damages for assault with $25,000 in punitive damages. For the claim of battery, the jury awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. As to the sexual harassment claim, the jury awarded $30,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.

The Defendants sought to amend the judgment to exclude the Plaintiffs' sexual harassment claim under the Act. Based upon the post-trial briefing, the Court was satisfied that a clear error of law was committed. The Act is clear that it does not provide for a cause of action for alleged discriminatory actions that occurred prior to October 1, 2007. Further, like Title VII, the Act does not apply to employers with fewer than fifteen (15) employees. In the instant case, the alleged discriminatory actions occurred between April 2007 and June 2007. Further, it was undisputed that TLM did not have more than fifteen (15) employees. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' employment discrimination claim under the Act failed.

The Court found that the correct remedy was to enter an amended judgment that did not include the Plaintiffs' sexual harassment claim. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion for Remittitur in part.