Attorney general’s office and sponsors seek to codify disparate‑impact standard in Maryland law

Delegate and Attorney General office witnesses urged the House Economic Matters Committee to favorably report House Bill 1261, a proposal to codify disparate‑impact doctrine under Maryland employment law.

Sponsor remarks summarized the history of Griggs v. Duke Power and noted that Maryland courts have long relied on federal precedent when interpreting state fair‑employment statutes. Jonathan Smith, chief of the Civil Rights Division at the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, said the bill would preserve the existing burden‑shifting standard used to evaluate neutral workplace policies that have a disproportionate adverse effect on protected classes. He described the three‑step test used by courts: (1) plaintiff shows a general policy has a discriminatory effect on a protected class; (2) defendant shows a legitimate business necessity for the policy; (3) plaintiff may prevail by demonstrating a less discriminatory alternative exists.

Sponsor and AG office witnesses emphasized the bill does not create new liability but simply ensures that Maryland will retain disparate‑impact analysis even if federal interpretations change. Committee members asked whether Maryland case law already provides adequate protections and some members referenced the judiciary’s written concerns about codification. Proponents said codifying the standard gives workers a stable remedy regardless of federal legal changes and would align state law with longstanding judicial practice.

Next steps: Proponents requested a favorable report and noted the measure’s limited legal aim — to preserve the existing standard in state code — while acknowleding the committee and judiciary may review fine‑grained drafting to address court concerns.