termination negates Ofc. Schmidt’s claim since Ofc. Schmidt filed his first EEOC complaint in November 2011 and was not fired until August 2012. ECF No. 39-2 at 23. But this ignores the fact that the investigation against Ofc. Schmidt, which would culminate in his eventual August 2012 termination, began the moment he returned to work on December 5, 2011. ECF No. 39-31. Defendant next argues that because the Plaintiffs have alleged multiple theories for his termination, including that his termination was in retaliation for supporting his wife’s sexual harassment charges and his pursuit of worker’s compensation benefits, Ofc. Schmidt cannot establish but-for causation, ECF No. 39-2 at 24; see also Kern v. S. Baltimore Gen. Hosp., 66 Md.App. 441, 447-48, 504 A.2d 1154, 1157 (1986)(<HOLDING>). However, the assertion of multiple wrongful
recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim recognizing wrongful discharge claim where employer allegedly discharged employee for exercising right to receive workers compensation benefits