Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCHARGE—D. Md.: Nurse fired after domestic violence charges, but before trial, could not proceed with wrongful discharge claim, (Nov 21, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

A state law protecting workers from adverse action based on criminal charges that did not result in conviction only does so after the record is expunged, not while the criminal charges are still pending.

A registered nurse was fired after being involved in a domestic dispute at her residence that resulted in her arrest, despite the charges against her being dropped and eventually expunged, and she sued in federal court for wrongful termination under state law. A Maryland federal court dismissed the claim, explaining that the law upon which she bases her claim—§ 10-109 of the Maryland Criminal Procedure Code—is only concerned with criminal charges that did not result in a conviction, and which were expunged in the past. “It does not set a clear mandate of public policy against employers using current criminal charges in their decisions to discharge or not hire.” Because the employee was terminated more than two weeks before her criminal trial and well before any expungement occurred, the employer could not have violated the law ( Murray v. Amedisys Holding, LLC , No. RDB-25-309 (D. Md. Nov. 20, 2025)).

The plaintiff, a registered nurse, began working at the employer’s home-health facility in Maryland in mid-2023. In February 2024, she was involved in a domestic dispute at her residence that resulted in her arrest. Shortly after, she notified the employer’s local operations director of the arrest, emphasizing that the incident was not related to her job and that she expected to be found not guilty. The operations director requested all documents related to the incident, including police reports, pursuant to company policy. The nurse declined to provide the documents but stated that all case details were available on the public state judiciary database.

Fired after reporting charges. Three days later, the nurse’s criminal attorney informed the operations director, along with a human resources representative, that the criminal case was scheduled for trial in late March. Following the refusal to provide documents, the employer suspended the nurse without pay as it conducted an internal investigation. On March 8, 2024, the employer terminated the nurse for failing to cooperate with that investigation—approximately 17 days before the criminal trial. At the March 25 trial, the nurse was found not guilty on all charges, and she later obtained an expungement of her criminal case records.

Not guilty, sues for wrongful discharge. She filed a single-count wrongful discharge action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, asserting that the employer’s decision violated a clear mandate of Maryland public policy—specifically, a statute that prohibits employers from requiring disclosure of expunged criminal records and from taking adverse action when an individual refuses to disclose such expunged information. She sought damages for lost wages, lost benefits, and emotional distress. The employer moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing first that the statute provides no private right of action, and second that the statute did not apply because the employee’s records were not expunged at the time of termination.

The federal district court addressed the procedural issues under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reviewing whether the case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court evaluated the employee’s claim under Maryland’s narrow tort of wrongful discharge, which requires termination, violation of a clear mandate of public policy, and a causal nexus between the protected conduct and the discharge.

Statute only protects post-expungement. Here, the court did not reach the question of whether the cited statute could constitute such a public-policy source because the employee failed on more fundamental statutory grounds. After conducting a detailed textual analysis of the statute, the court noted that the provision consistently uses past-tense terminology, and that the structure and language of the statute make clear that it protects individuals only after their criminal or police records have already been expunged at the time an employer requests information or takes adverse action. The court noted that interpreting the statute to apply to non-expunged, pending charges would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and would contradict the structure of related provisions.

“The unambiguous meaning of the General Assembly’s choice of tense is that employers are proscribed from using an employee’s or applicant’s previously-expunged criminal record to that person’s detriment,” the court noted. “In sum, § 10-109 is limited to criminal records that were already expunged by the time the employer asked about them or made an adverse decision based on them.” Because the employee was terminated more than two weeks before her criminal trial and well before any expungement occurred, the employer could not have violated the statute as a matter of law. Moreover, even assuming the statute reflected a clear mandate of public policy, the employee could not satisfy the second required element of a wrongful discharge claim. The court also concluded that no amendment could cure this defect, because the statute’s protections are triggered only after expungement.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

The case is No. RDB-25-309.

Attorneys: Robin R. Cockey (Cockey Brennan and Maloney) for Katie Murray. Jason D. Keck (Fisher Phillips) for Amedisys Holding, LLC.

Companies: Amedisys Holding, LLC

Cases: Discharge StateLawClaims MarylandNews