concurrence for Crawford's hiring."261 According to the Court of Special Appeals, Crawford
"proved that appellants' discriminatory act with respect to her was deliberate and purposeful and
not accidental or inadvertent. The fact that appellants may have acted in good faith is of no
moment."262

D.        Fowler v. McCrory

Most attention is paid to litigation under Title VH, but there are a number of other laws
prohibiting employment discrimination. Each faces its own difficulties. One recent case
involved allegations of violations of Title VII, §1983 and a Montgomery County anti-
discrimination ordinance. The plaintiff Fowler had been a long time employee of McCrory. He
alleged that he had been told that he had hired too many black employees and that he should not
hire so many black employees. When he protested and filed a complaint with the Montgomery
County Human Relations Committee he was threatened with discipline and forced to quit. The
Court had no difficulty finding a cause of action under Title Vn. A more difficult issue was
whether Fowler could maintain an action under §1983 which provides that all citizens shall have
the same right to contract as white citizens. The Supreme Court had held in Patterson v. McLean
Credit Union263 that the section applied only to pre-contract formation activity. Judge Motz ruled
that §1983 applied to the hiring policy of McCrory, and that Fowler had third party standing to
raise the §1983 claim ~ he was injured by the hiring policy since he was compelled to quit rather
than discriminate himself and he was an appropriate person to raise the rights of prospective
hires.264

Judge Motz referred to the Maryland Court of Appeals the issue of liability under the
Montgomery County ordinance. That court held that the ordinance was beyond the power of the
county council. Although the law was not preempted by federal or state laws and it applied only
to employment decisions within the territory of Montgomery County, the court said that
employment discrimination was a statewide issue and not a local issue. Therefore it was outside
the home rule powers of the county to adopt a regulation of employment decisions in the
county.265

E.        Some General Observations

The legislature, state and federal, has outlawed racial discrimination in employment.
Affirmative action plans have been mandated by courts, consented to by employers, and even
voluntarily implemented without the threat of suit in some cases. Nevertheless, the racial
disparity in unemployment and median family income is quite large and shows few signs of
decreasing. Some portion of that gap may be attributable to the failure of the law to accomplish
its goal. Law sets a standard for behavior, but laws are broken and the miscreants are not always
punished. In an era where racial discrimination is often subtle, it may be difficult to identify the
violator or the specific victim. Litigation is unpleasant for the parties, and many persons are
unwilling to claim their rights in this forum - fearing social and economic retaliation or simply
fearing the experience of litigation itself.

176