A senior associate at a Baltimore firm reports an unwanted touching incident from a partner to HR, and within weeks her caseload is reassigned and her year-end review reflects “concerns” that have never been mentioned before. A nurse at a Bethesda hospital files an internal complaint about a charge nurse’s persistent sexual comments, and three months later her position is eliminated in a “restructuring.” A young marketing professional in Annapolis tells her supervisor about a co-worker’s behavior at a company offsite, and watches her career stall in ways that culminate in termination six months later. The pattern is familiar enough that the Wrongful Termination Lawyers Maryland employees consult see versions of it nearly every week. The legal landscape for these cases looks very different in 2026 than it did in 2017, with the Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018 and a series of related changes substantially shifting both the substantive law and the settlement dynamics.
What the Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act Actually Did
The Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018, enacted as Chapters 738 and 739 of the 2018 Acts of the Maryland General Assembly, took effect on October 1, 2018, with two distinct sets of changes that affected both the litigation framework and the public record around employer conduct.
The first change was a prohibition on certain pre-dispute waivers. Subject to federal preemption considerations, the Act voids any provision in an employment contract, policy, or agreement that waives substantive or procedural rights or remedies for a claim of future sexual harassment or for retaliation related to a sexual harassment claim. Pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements covering future sexual harassment claims fell within the prohibition. Severance agreements and other documents that purported to bar future claims faced new scrutiny. An employer that attempted to enforce a now-void provision became liable for the employee’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Federal Arbitration Act preemption question that hung over the Act’s arbitration provisions was substantially resolved by the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2022, which gave employees the option to invalidate pre-dispute arbitration agreements covering sexual harassment and sexual assault claims at the federal level. The combination of the Maryland statute and the federal EFAA gives Maryland workers strong tools to keep these cases out of arbitration when the worker prefers a public forum.
The second change was the disclosure survey requirement. Maryland employers with 50 or more employees were required to report to the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights the number of sexual harassment settlements they had paid, the number of times they had paid more than one settlement involving the same employee, and the number of settlements that included confidentiality provisions. The survey results were made publicly available. The original survey requirements sunset on June 30, 2023, unless the General Assembly reauthorized them, and the current status of any successor reporting obligation should be confirmed at the time of any specific case.
What the 2022 Standard Change Added
A separate but related development in 2022 substantially changed the substantive sexual harassment standard in Maryland. Senate Bill 450, signed into law in 2022 and effective October 1, 2022, replaced the “severe or pervasive” standard that had long governed Maryland harassment claims with a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.
Under the prior standard, derived from federal Title VII case law, a plaintiff had to show that the harassment was either severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms and conditions of employment. The standard was difficult to meet in many cases, particularly those involving a series of less-extreme incidents or a single isolated event that fell short of the severity threshold.
The 2022 amendment lowered the bar significantly. Under the new totality-of-the-circumstances standard, the analysis looks at whether the conduct, considered as a whole, would lead a reasonable person to consider it more than a petty slight or trivial inconvenience. The change makes Maryland sexual harassment claims meaningfully easier to establish than the same claims under federal Title VII, which still applies the severe-or-pervasive framework.
The combined effect is significant. Claims that would not have survived summary judgment under the prior Maryland standard are now viable. Claims that proceed under federal law alongside state claims often have stronger prospects under the state standard than under the federal one, which changes how cases are pleaded and how settlements are negotiated.
How the Settlement Landscape Actually Changed
The pre-2018 settlement landscape in Maryland sexual harassment cases was shaped by several features that quietly favored employers. Pre-dispute arbitration agreements pushed many claims into private forums where the proceedings and outcomes were confidential. Settlement agreements routinely included broad confidentiality provisions that prevented the worker from discussing the conduct or the resolution. The combination produced a system in which the same offenders sometimes settled multiple claims over years, with each settlement insulated from public knowledge.
The Act and the related changes pushed against several of these features simultaneously. The arbitration restrictions, combined with the federal EFAA, gave workers the option to keep cases in court. The disclosure survey, while aggregate-level rather than case-specific, made public the rough scale of an employer’s sexual harassment settlements. The post-2022 substantive standard made cases easier to bring, which increased the worker’s leverage in any settlement discussion.
The practical result is that settlement values and settlement dynamics in Maryland sexual harassment and related retaliation cases have shifted in employees’ favor. Employers facing the possibility of litigation in court rather than arbitration, with public proceedings rather than confidential ones, and under a more plaintiff-friendly substantive standard, have stronger incentives to resolve claims early and on more favorable terms.
How a Sexual Harassment Retaliation Case Actually Gets Built
A worker fired after reporting sexual harassment in Maryland generally has at least two distinct claims. The underlying harassment claim addresses the conduct that prompted the report. The retaliation claim addresses the firing itself as punishment for the protected activity of reporting.
The retaliation analysis tracks the burden-shifting framework familiar from other employment retaliation contexts. The worker establishes a prima facie case by showing protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two. The employer offers a legitimate non-retaliatory reason. The worker shows that the reason is pretext.
Causation in retaliation cases driven by harassment reports is often established through temporal proximity, comparator evidence, and the documentary record showing the employer’s response to the report. A worker who reported harassment, faced no investigation or a perfunctory one, and was terminated within weeks of the report has a strong inference of retaliation. The internal records around the investigation, including the speed of the response, the substance of the inquiry, and the disciplinary actions taken or not taken against the alleged harasser, often surface in discovery and damage the employer’s defense.
The Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act and Title VII both prohibit retaliation. The state-law claim runs through the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights with a two-year filing window. The federal claim runs through the EEOC with a 180-day or 300-day filing window depending on the cross-filing arrangement. Cases are typically filed under both frameworks to preserve the parallel pathways.
The Other Theories That Often Run in Parallel
A sexual harassment retaliation case often supports additional theories. Constructive discharge applies when working conditions made continued employment intolerable, regardless of whether the worker was formally terminated. The Healthy Working Families Act may apply if the worker used sick leave related to the stress or medical impact of the harassment. ADA disability discrimination may apply if the harassment produced a recognized psychological condition. Section 1981 may apply when racial harassment is part of the same factual picture.
A skilled approach asserts each of these theories as the facts support, with each statute contributing its own remedies and its own procedural advantages.
The Next Step If You Were Fired After Reporting
A Maryland worker terminated after reporting sexual harassment should not assume that the firing is just an at-will action the employer can defend with a generic explanation. The Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act, the 2022 standard change, the federal EFAA, and the parallel discrimination and retaliation statutes together produce a stronger framework for these cases than existed even a few years ago. The Mundaca Law Firm represents employees throughout Maryland, and a conversation with the Wrongful Termination Lawyers Maryland professionals at the firm trust will produce a clear-eyed read on the available paths and the realistic timeline. The deadlines on these claims run quickly, and the strongest cases are the ones that move forward while the documentary record is still intact.
