## Facts

- Four at-will employees of Rite-Aid of Maryland, Inc. alleged the company required groups of employees to submit to polygraph examinations to investigate inventory “shrinkage.”
- Maryland law prohibited employers from requiring polygraph tests as a condition of prospective or continued employment.
- The employees claimed Rite-Aid enforced its polygraph policy by discharging employees who refused or by changing working conditions to induce resignation (e.g., reduced hours, transfers, and other burdens).
- Marguerite Cook presented evidence that, after adverse employment actions and termination, her preexisting nervous condition worsened, including increased medication, prolonged sleeping, social withdrawal, and inability to perform usual household activities for an extended period.
- The other employees testified they were upset by the treatment but generally continued normal functioning.
- A jury found for all plaintiffs on wrongful discharge (public-policy tort) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), awarding compensatory and punitive damages against Rite-Aid and two individuals (a district manager and a corporate officer).
- Defendants appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the wrongful-discharge and IIED claims, individual liability, and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether discharge (including constructive discharge) for refusing an employer-required polygraph examination prohibited by statute supports a common-law wrongful-discharge claim based on a clear mandate of public policy.
2. Whether the evidence permitted submission of IIED claims to the jury, including whether defendants’ conduct was “extreme and outrageous” and whether each plaintiff proved “severe” emotional distress.
3. Whether the evidence supported personal liability of the district manager and corporate officer for wrongful discharge and IIED.
4. Whether punitive damages were supportable, and against which defendants, under Maryland’s actual-malice requirement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that the statutory prohibition on required polygraph testing expressed a clear mandate of public policy and could support a wrongful-discharge claim against Rite-Aid when discharge followed refusal to submit to illegal testing.
- The court reversed the wrongful-discharge judgments against the individual defendants, finding the proof insufficient to impose personal liability for that tort.
- The court held that a jury could find the conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous, but only Cook presented sufficient evidence of “severe” emotional distress; the IIED judgments for the other plaintiffs were reversed.
- The court upheld punitive damages against Rite-Aid based on evidence of deliberate statutory violation and conscious disregard of employee rights, but reversed and/or remanded portions of punitive-damages awards tied to claims and defendants for which liability was not sustained.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland recognizes a narrow wrongful-discharge tort for at-will employees terminated in violation of a clear mandate of public policy; a specific employee-protection statute can supply the public-policy mandate.
- Discharging (or constructively discharging) an employee for refusing to comply with an employer demand that violates a statutory employment protection can satisfy the public-policy exception to at-will employment.
- IIED requires proof of (1) intentional or reckless conduct, (2) conduct that is extreme and outrageous, (3) a causal connection, and (4) severe emotional distress; “severe” distress requires substantial impairment beyond ordinary upset.
- Punitive damages in Maryland tort actions require actual malice, including conscious disregard of others’ rights; deliberate violation of a statutory protection may support a finding of actual malice.
- When underlying liability is reversed as to certain parties or claims, associated punitive-damages awards cannot stand in the same form and may require reversal or a new trial on damages.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that firing employees for refusing employer-required polygraph tests prohibited by statute can constitute wrongful discharge against the employer, but limited IIED recovery to the plaintiff who proved severe emotional injury and rejected wrongful-discharge liability against individual managers on the record presented, requiring adjustments to punitive damages accordingly.


Moniodis v. Cook, 64 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1985)