## Facts

- Robert G. Fowler, a white male, managed a retail store operated by McCrory Corporation in Montgomery County, Maryland.
- Fowler alleged that a McCrory manager directed him not to hire Black applicants or persons under age 35.
- Fowler protested and asked McCrory executives to repudiate the directive; they allegedly refused.
- Fowler claimed he was then harassed and constructively discharged in retaliation for protesting the directive.
- Fowler sued for damages, asserting federal claims (including Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981), a state tort claim for abusive discharge, and a claim under Montgomery County Code § 27-20(a), which purported to create a private civil action for employment discrimination (damages, injunctive, or other civil relief).
- McCrory moved to dismiss the county-code claim, arguing the county lacked authority to create a private judicial cause of action.

## Issues

1. Whether Montgomery County Code § 27-20(a), creating a private civil action for employment discrimination, conflicts with or is preempted by Maryland’s statewide anti-discrimination statute (Article 49B).
2. Whether § 27-20(a) exceeds Montgomery County’s home-rule authority because it is not a “local law” under Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution and thus cannot be authorized by the Express Powers Act.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland answered the certified questions.
- The court held the ordinance was not preempted by, and did not conflict with, Article 49B.
- The court nevertheless held § 27-20(a) invalid because it was not a “local law” within the meaning of Article XI-A.
- Because the ordinance was not a valid local law, the Express Powers Act did not and could not authorize Montgomery County to enact it.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland preemption analysis distinguishes between (a) field or conflict preemption by state statutory policy and (b) whether a county has constitutional home-rule authority to legislate in a particular manner.
- A local enactment may be consistent with state anti-discrimination policy yet still be invalid if it is not a “local law” permitted to charter counties under Article XI-A.
- Creating a new private judicial cause of action for damages and injunctive relief is treated as legislation of general (statewide) concern, not a purely local law, and therefore falls outside charter-county legislative power.
- The Express Powers Act cannot extend county authority beyond the constitutional limitation that charter counties may legislate only by “local law.”

## Conclusion

Montgomery County’s ordinance creating a private employment-discrimination lawsuit was not preempted by Maryland’s statewide anti-discrimination scheme, but it was unconstitutional because a charter county lacks authority to create a new private judicial remedy that is not a permissible “local law.”


McCrory Corp. v. Fowler, 319 Md. 12, 570 A.2d 834 (1990)