Is Maryland an at-will state?

“Provisions in policy manuals ‘may, if properly expressed and communicated to the employee, become contractual undertakings by the employer that are enforceable by the employee.’”

Before you fire someone: the step-by-step checklist

What it means for Maryland employers

Maryland's appellate courts treat the abusive discharge tort as narrow and build it case by case. The Court of Special Appeals in Holden v. University System of Maryland (2015) lists three elements: the employee was discharged, the dismissal violated some clear mandate of public policy, and there is a nexus between the defendant and the decision to fire. Parks v. Alpharma shows how much the second element carries: that complaint was dismissed because the employee did not identify any clear mandate of public policy the employer had violated. (Holden v. University System of Maryland, Md. Ct. Spec. App. No. 0369, Sept. Term 2014; Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59 (2011))

Parks groups the situations the courts have accepted. An employee may not be dismissed for performing a specific legal duty, like the teacher in Bleich who was a mandatory reporter of suspected child abuse under the Family Law Article; for refusing to engage in criminal conduct, as in Insignia Residential Corp. v. Ashton; for exercising a legal right such as filing a workers' compensation claim (Ewing v. Koppers); or for seeking legal redress against a coworker who committed an assault (Watson v. Peoples Security Life). (Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59 (2011))

A limit from Makovi v. Sherwin-Williams (1989), recited in Parks, matters for employers: the tort does not lie where the public policy comes from a statute that already provides its own remedy. Watson adds that when more than one policy is involved and at least one does not carry its own statutory remedy, a claim based on that one may still proceed. (Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59 (2011))

On the contract side, a Maryland employer controls much of the risk through its own documents. Staggs holds that policy provisions limiting the employer's discretion to terminate, or setting a required termination procedure, can become contractual undertakings once communicated. Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center (1995) explains that the purpose of the Staggs exception is to protect justified reliance, and that reliance is not justified where contractual intent has been expressly disclaimed. Delaware, a neighbor, takes a stricter view of handbooks: its courts hold that a unilateral statement of company policies does not create an employment contract. (Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 106 Md. App. 470 (1995); U.S. District Court, D. Del., No. 00-803 (Brooks v. Nationwide), citing Heideck v. Kent General Hospital, Inc., 446 A.2d 1095 (Del. 1982))

When the job ends, Maryland Labor and Employment § 3-505(a) sets the final pay deadline at the day the employee would have been paid had the employment continued. Under § 3-505(b), accrued leave does not have to be paid at termination if the employer has a written policy, notified at hiring, that limits it. (Md. Code, Labor and Employment § 3-505)

Exceptions and special cases

• Wrongful (abusive) discharge in violation of public policy (Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31, 1981): recognized, and narrow. The employee has to identify a clear mandate of public policy; the tort is not available where the statute behind the policy supplies its own remedy (Makovi). (Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59 (2011))
• Implied contract from personnel policies (Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland, 61 Md. App. 381, 1985): recognized. Provisions that limit dismissal or require a termination procedure can bind the employer; an express disclaimer of contractual intent defeats the claim (Bagwell; Castiglione v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, as discussed in Spacesaver Systems v. Adam, 2013). (Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam, Md. Ct. Spec. App. No. 1797, Sept. Term 2011; Holden v. University System of Maryland, Md. Ct. Spec. App. No. 0369, Sept. Term 2014)
• Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: not recognized as a separate claim. The Court of Special Appeals noted in Magnetti v. University of Maryland (2006) that Maryland has no separate cause of action for breach of the implied covenant; such allegations are pursued, if at all, under a breach of contract claim. (Magnetti v. University of Maryland, No. 2492, Sept. Term 2005 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006), footnote)

Worked examples

A personnel manual with a grievance procedure

A Baltimore clinic's manual sets out a three-step grievance and termination process. The first page states that the manual is not a contract and that either side may end employment at any time. Under Staggs a communicated termination procedure can become binding, and under Bagwell an express disclaimer of that kind is what prevents justified reliance. Manuals without such a statement sit closer to the Staggs facts, where the policy memorandum contained a for-cause provision. (Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 106 Md. App. 470 (1995); Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam, Md. Ct. Spec. App. No. 1797, Sept. Term 2011)

Final pay after a dismissal on Friday, October 9, 2026

The clinic pays every other Friday, and the employee's next scheduled payday would have been Friday, October 16, 2026. Maryland § 3-505(a) requires all wages for work done before the termination by that date. If the clinic has a written leave policy that was given at hiring and limits payout, § 3-505(b) lets it apply that policy to accrued leave. (Md. Code, Labor and Employment § 3-505)

How to act on it

At-will: Maryland and neighboring states

Each state links to its rulebook. Only rules we verified are shown.

Questions about Maryland at-will rules

The verified rules behind this page (5)

• Public policy: Maryland recognizes a tort of wrongful ("abusive") discharge when the motivation for firing an at-will employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy (Adler v. American Standard Corp.); courts treat it as a narrow exception. (Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59 (2011) (Md. Court of Appeals, No. 115, Sept. Term 2010), discussing Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31 (1981); Holden v. University System of Maryland, No. 0369, Sept. Term 2014 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., reported); verified Sep 24, 2026)
• Implied contract: In Maryland, personnel-policy or handbook provisions that limit the employer’s discretion to terminate, or set a required termination procedure, may become enforceable contractual undertakings if properly expressed and communicated (Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland); an express disclaimer of contractual intent defeats the claim. (Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam, No. 1797, Sept. Term 2011 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., reported), quoting Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc., 61 Md. App. 381 (1985); Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 106 Md. App. 470 (1995) (Md. Ct. Spec. App., No. 1866, Sept. Term 1994), quoting Staggs; verified Sep 24, 2026)
• Good faith covenant: Maryland does not recognize a separate cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; such allegations are pursued, if at all, as part of a breach-of-contract claim. (Magnetti v. University of Maryland, No. 2492, Sept. Term 2005 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006), footnote; U.S. District Court, D. Md., No. 1:14-cv-00676, citing Ward v. 84 Lumber, 758 F. Supp. 335, 336-337 (D. Md. 1991); verified Sep 24, 2026)
• When employment ends, the employer must pay all wages due for work performed before termination on or before the day the employee would have been paid had the employment not ended. (Md. Code, Labor and Employment § 3-505(a); Maryland Division of Labor and Industry, Termination Pay; verified Sep 24, 2026)
• Implied contract (Delaware, for comparison): Delaware courts hold that an employee handbook that is a unilateral statement of company policies does not create an employment contract; a contract limiting at-will termination must expressly create a definite term or otherwise expressly bar at-will termination. (U.S. District Court, D. Del., No. 00-803 (Brooks v. Nationwide), citing Heideck v. Kent General Hospital, Inc., 446 A.2d 1095 (Del. 1982); Del. P.J.I. Civ. § 19.25 Employment Contracts - Generally (2025); verified Sep 24, 2026)

Sources (10)

• Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59 (2011)
• Holden v. University System of Maryland, Md. Ct. Spec. App. No. 0369, Sept. Term 2014
• Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam, Md. Ct. Spec. App. No. 1797, Sept. Term 2011
• Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, 106 Md. App. 470 (1995)
• Md. Code, Labor and Employment § 3-505
• Maryland Division of Labor and Industry, Termination Pay
• U.S. District Court, D. Del., No. 00-803 (Brooks v. Nationwide), citing Heideck v. Kent General Hospital, Inc., 446 A.2d 1095 (Del. 1982)
• Del. P.J.I. Civ. § 19.25 Employment Contracts - Generally (2025)
• Magnetti v. University of Maryland, No. 2492, Sept. Term 2005 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006), footnote
• U.S. District Court, D. Md., No. 1:14-cv-00676, citing Ward v. 84 Lumber, 758 F. Supp. 335, 336-337 (D. Md. 1991)

Checked Sep 24, 2026 · How we verify every rule · Report an error

Where this goes next

StateMaryland employer rulebookAll 51 statesAt-will employment by stateAlso in MarylandMaryland final paycheck rulesStep by stepHow to fire an employee in your state