Maryland Commission on Civil Rights Reveals Its Discrimination Playbook

Quick Hits

• On June 22, 2026, the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (MCCR) published its Elements of Proof Guidance, a comprehensive document setting forth the elements of proof the MCCR applies for claims of employment and other discrimination under Maryland State Government Article, Title 20.
• The guidance identifies thirty-five categories of employment discrimination claims—ranging from hiring, promotion, and discharge to harassment, retaliation, and genetic testing—and sets forth the specific elements required to prove each claim under Maryland law.
• While Maryland courts typically look to federal law, the guidance reveals several areas where Maryland law diverges—including additional protected classes, a lower harassment threshold, strict supervisor liability, and different accommodation standards—though it is an agency investigation tool only, and Maryland courts may disagree with the MCCR’s interpretations.

For Maryland employers, the guidance provides a valuable window into how the MCCR evaluates employment-related discrimination claims. The guidance identifies the following thirty-five employment discrimination claims and sets forth the elements required to prove each claim under Maryland law:

• Hiring
• Reasonable accommodation
• Religious accommodation
• Wages
• Benefits
• Terms
• Conditions
• Privileges
• Promotion
• Discipline
• Demotion
• Discharge
• Constructive discharge
• Reinstatement
• Qualifications
• Testing (adverse impact)
• Testing (disparate treatment)
• Training
• Apprenticeship
• Job Classification
• Layoff
• Recall
• Seniority
• Tenure
• Retirement
• Harassment (hostile environment)
• Harassment (quid pro quo)
• Sexual harassment (hostile environment)
• Sexual harassment (quid pro quo)
• Retaliation
• Unfavorable Reference
• Advertising
• Reasonable accommodation discrimination in pregnancy or childbirth
• Genetic testing
• Genetic testing (complainant refusal)

Notably, although the Maryland courts typically look to federal law for guidance in evaluating employment discrimination claims under Maryland law, the guidance also reveals several areas where the MCCR’s analytical framework differs from the federal approach. Below are some of the more significant differences between state and federal law:

1. Protected classes. Maryland law protects additional personal characteristics, including marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and military status, which are not protected under federal law.
2. Harassment definition. Until 2022, Maryland law was consistent with federal law in requiring conduct to be “severe or pervasive,” among other things, in order to constitute unlawful harassment. This guidance specifically removes that requirement in the following three situations involving “unwelcome and offensive conduct”: (1) submission to the conduct is made a term or condition of an individual’s employment, whether explicitly or implicitly; (2) submission to or rejection of the conduct is used as the basis for employment decisions about the individual; or (3) based on the totality of the circumstances, the conduct unreasonably creates a working environment that a reasonable person would perceive to be abusive or hostile. Maryland law also provides a separate definition of “sexual harassment” as conduct “that consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other conduct of a sexual nature.” Again, such conduct need not be severe or pervasive under the same three situations set forth above.
3. Supervisor harassment liability. Maryland law imposes strict liability for supervisor harassment, which the guidance frames as being foreseeable or taking place within the scope of employment, considering factors such as when and where the acts took place (e.g., workplace, offsite trainings, mandatory retreats, or office parties). This differs from the federal standard, which turns on whether a tangible employment action occurred and the availability of an affirmative defense.
4. Religious accommodation. The MCCR guidance uses a “more than a de minimis cost” undue-hardship standard for religious accommodation, while federal courts now apply the more demanding standard articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Groff v. DeJoy.
5. Pregnancy accommodation. Maryland law obligates employers to provide accommodations for “disabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy or childbirth,” while the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act requires accommodations for “known limitations” related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
6. Retaliation as adverse action. The MCCR guidance lists “adverse employment action” as an element of retaliation, while retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 uses a “materially adverse” standard, which is broader and thus typically easier for individuals to meet.

This guidance is an agency investigation tool only. Accordingly, while the MCCR uses it to evaluate claims, Maryland courts may not necessarily agree with the MCCR’s interpretation of the law. However, the guidance may be helpful for Maryland employers to consider when defending against claims before the MCCR. In responding to MCCR complaints, employers may benefit from addressing each element that the MCCR evaluates in their responses, to clearly rebut such claims within the framework that the MCCR applies.

Ogletree Deakins’ Baltimore office will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law and Maryland blogs as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts