1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Maryland Sexual Harassment Disclosure Reporting Now Live

Maryland Sexual Harassment Disclosure Reporting Now Live

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.11.19

Last fall, Maryland enacted the “Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act,” joining a number of states—including New York, Washington, and California—that have passed legislation aimed at fostering transparency and preventing sexual harassment in response to the #MeToo movement. In addition to preventing employers from requiring employees to arbitrate claims of sexual harassment, the Maryland statute also requires employers in Maryland with 50 or more employees (across all locations, not just in Maryland) to electronically submit to the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (the “Commission”) answers to the below questions by July 1, 2020 and July 1, 2022:

  1. The number of settlements made by or on behalf of the employer after an allegation of sexual harassment by an employee;
  2. The number of times the employer has paid a settlement to resolve a sexual harassment allegation against the same employee over the past 10 years of employment (and whether the employer took personnel action against the employee who was subject of a settlement); and
  3. The number of settlements made after an allegation of sexual harassment that included a provision requiring both parties to keep the terms of the settlement confidential.

The survey for the July 1, 2020 reporting period is now live. Employers can electronically submit their responses by visiting the commission on Civil Rights website. Any responses submitted now satisfy the reporting period through July 1, 2020. There is no reason for employers to delay providing the information once it is collected. Reporting based on current data gives the employer more certainty, and has the added advantage of identifying any potential problems earlier so the employer can take steps to address systematic issues and, in turn, reduce the number claims for the next reporting period.

The Commission will then publish on its website the aggregate number of responses from employers for each data point. Importantly, employers should not expect their reports to remain anonymous or confidential – the Commission will retain and make available for public inspection (on request) the response from a specific employer regarding the number of settlements in question. The Commission will also create an executive summary from a random selection of surveys which it will submit to the Governor, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Economic Matters Committee on December 15, 2020 and December 15, 2022, respectively.

Employers in Maryland should begin collecting data if they have not already, and reach out to employment counsel with any questions regarding compliance.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....