court’s instructions. Based on the lengthy discussion in the body of the opinion, however, it appears that the Circuit Court meant to leave that determination to the District Court, after the trial court decided the remaining and dispositive factual questions. 11 . In Montrose Christian School Corp. v. Walsh, we noted that "actions for damages based on the termination of employment relationships, including those regulated by statutes, ordinarily sound in contract and not in tort.” 363 Md. 565, 582-83, 770 A.2d 111, 121 (2001). In that case and in the cases cited therein for that proposition, we did not have cause to discuss either the MWHL or the MWPCL, but focused simply on contract-based actions. But see Chappell v. Southern Maryland Hospital, Inc., 320 Md. 483, 578 A.2d 766 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 12 . We do not mention this case as a
recognizing tort of wrongful discharge recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge holding that a tort claim for abusive discharge was precluded by the existence of statutory federal and state remedies for discharge of an employee but not determining whether the mwhl sounded in contract or tort holding that under pierce an employee in new jersey may maintain a private action in tort or contract for retaliatory discharge as a result of the filing of an osha complaint because such discharge contravenes our public policy recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy