# Marshall v. Safeway, Inc.

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · March 26, 2014 · 437 Md. 542

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800139

## Case

- **Full name:** Bonita H. MARSHALL v. SAFEWAY, INC.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** March 26, 2014
- **Citations:** 437 Md. 542; 88 A.3d 735; 2014 Md. LEXIS 163; 2014 WL 1227629
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Adkins
- **Judges:** Adkins, Alan, Barbera, Battaglia, Greene, Harrell, McDONALD, Wilner
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800139

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the MWPCL should be read broadly to confer a private cause of action for unauthorized deductions under section 3-503
- concluding that employees have a right to bring a private cause of action under the MWPCL to recover unlawfully withheld wages that result from miscalculating the amount of wages exempt from garnishment
- holding that the MWPCL generally provides an employee with a cause of action against an employer for both the failure to pay wages on time and for “the refusal of employers to pay wages lawfully due.”
- holding that the MWPCL provides an employee with a cause of action against an employer for both the failure to pay wages on time and for “the refusal of employers to pay wages lawfully due”
- explaining that the MWCPL allows employees “to recover the unpaid wages”

## Opinion text

ADKINS, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
Respectfully, I disagree with the Majority’s holding that Ms. Marshall had a private cause of action under Md.Code (1993, 2008 Repl. Vol., 2013 Cum.Supp.), § 3-507.2 of the Labor and Employment Article (“LE”). I agree with the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals that under a plain language interpretation, an employee can only bring a § 3-507.2 action, with its attendant treble damages and attorney’s fees, if the employer “fails to pay an employee in accordance with § 3-502 or § 3-505.” LE § 3-507.2. Safeway violated neither LE § 3-502 nor LE § 3-505. Rather, in response to a wage garnishment, it made a deduction from Ms. Marshall’s wages that failed to comply with LE § 3-503. If the Legislature had intended to allow an employee to bring a § 3-507.2 action for the employer’s failure to comply with LE § 3-503, it certainly knew how to say so. I agree with all other aspects of the Majority opinion, and like the Majority, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800139. Public record. Not legal advice.