forcing employees to waive their MWPCL rights, either explicitly or by “applying the laws of other states to their employment relationship that provide fewer protections than the MWPCL.” Wage Payment and Collection: Void Agreements: Blearing on H.B. 298 Before the H.D. Economic Matters Committee, 428th Sess. 1 (2011) (statement of Del. Joseline A. Peña-Melnyk). She named Sedghi in her testimony, recounting that court’s determination that the MWPCL did not represent “important ‘public policy.’ ” She suggested that “[b]y placing an express prohibition against contracting for less than the wages owed, we can clarify for the courts that the MWPCL is important public policy and remove any question that such agreements should be voided.” Id.; see Johnson, 430 Md. at 388, 61 A.3d at 44-45 (<HOLDING>). She noted also that the same language existed
holding that the decision to allow attorney fees rests with the trial judge and that decision may only be reversed for an abuse of discretion holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding that court of appeals erred in relying on the plain meaning of a statute when the legislative history clearly indicated another meaning recognizing that the existence of a copy of a decision in a bill file along with numerous references to a decision of the court of appeals in the legislative history indicated that an amendment was made in response to that decision