By and through the undersigned Attorney, Shearer-Quigley Hospital, the defendant, moves to dismiss the complaint brought by George Marsh, the plaintiff, for failing to state a claim in accordance with Maryland Rule 2-322(b).
As a result, the Plaintiff's claim that she was bound by a contract with the Defendant can be accepted while also being contested. Accordingly, the complaint may be dismissed, if the law does not support the conclusions argued or where the facts are not sufficient to support the claim presented (Maryland Rules).
The standard for the motion to dismiss was set and determined in the case of Faya v Almarez.
The learned judge stated that, "we must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and allegations viewed would nevertheless fail to afford the Plaintiff's relief if proven." It is basically the legal sufficiency of the claim in the suit filed by the Complainant. Unlike the Faya's case, whereby the Plaintiff had sufficient proof, the Marsh's allegations containing undisputed facts are insufficient to maintain the claims of breach of the contract and wrongful discharge.
Facts
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and served as a medical biller/ coder. He began working for Shearer-Quigley on July 7, 2014. He was given the letter confirming his employment. He was also given the 'Employee's Handbook' that contained among other things the Shearer-Quigley's confidentiality policy, the employee's dismissal policy and also the disclaimer indicating that it was not the employment contract. The Plaintiff's filed the complaints, namely, two counts against the Defendant alleging that he was wrongfully discharged and that there was the breach of the contract.
Arguments
Count One: Breach of the Contract
Concerning the first count, the Plaintiff's alleges that the Defendants breached the employment contract by terminating his employment at the hospital. He claims that it was wrongful and not warranted. Essentially, the Defendant states that there was no employment contract in place. Thus, the only available employment documents are the employment handbook, dismissal policy and also the confidentiality policy which the Plaintiff was aware of. The employment handbook does not affirm of any contract in place as it was explained in the case of Bagwell v Peninsula. It was at will the case of the employee and the Plaintiff claimed that he was discharged for the violation of terms in the peninsulas employment handbook which he argued created enforceable contractual rights.
The Court decided that the employee or the employer may terminate at will employment relationship, for almost any reason or no reason at any time. It clearly gave the Defendants the right to end the employment relationship. There was also the further disclaimer that expressly stated that the handbook should not be treated as the contract. Hence, it affirms the fact that the employment handbook should not always be presumed as a contractual obligation.
In this case, it is the same situation as the Plaintiff was aware of the disclaimer in the employment handbook. It indicated the fact that it was not a contractual relation. In fact, the Plaintiff personally signed the handbook after reading the details in it. It confirms our view that there was no contract in the first place to be breached. Hence, it is our hope that this honorable Court will dismiss the suit.
Count Two: Wrongful Discharge
Regardless of the second count, the Plaintiff advances the claim of wrongful discharge for the grounds that his employment was terminated because he reported for the criminal activities in the hospitals nurse station. It is the case that the Plaintiff could have sought for the guidance of the employment handbook which had the confidentiality policy in place. It affirmed that there should not be the information about the hospital being spread to other members of the public. If the Plaintiff was in good faith, he would have informed his supervisor. The former would later take immediate actions without trying to tarnish the hospitals reputation in public. It was clear that failure to follow the hospitals confidentiality report would be wrongdoing and definitely there had to be some consequences.
In the case of Adler v. American Std. Corp, it was noted that the common law rule applicable in Maryland is that the employment contract of indefinite durations can be legally terminated at the pleasure of either party at any time. It shows that the Defendant had the discretion of terminating the employment relation. Hence, it does not amount to wrongful discharge.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully request that this Court grant its motion and dismiss with prejudice both counts of the Plaintiff's complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
Defendants Attorney
Works Cited
Adler v. American Std. Corp., 291 Md. 31, 432 A.2d 464, 1981.
Bagwell v. Peninsula Reg'l Med. Ctr., 106 Md. App 470, 665 A.2d 297, 1995.
Faya v. Almaraz, 329 Md. 435, 620 A.2d 327, 1993.
Maryland Rules, Rule 2 -322(b).
