clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Session Laws, 2006
Volume 750, Page 1588   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
Ch. 283                                    2006 LAWS OF MARYLAND (F) THE OFFICE SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS'
RELATING TO DISCRIMINATION THAT OCCURRED OUTSIDE THE MARYLAND
METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA, EXCEPT THAT THE OFFICE MAY DO SO IF THE
COMPLAINANT PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF A NEXUS BETWEEN THE DISCRIMINATION
THAT OCCURRED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DISCRIMINATION IN THE MARYLAND
METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA.
(G) IN DETERMINING WHETHER DISCRIMINATION OCCURRED UNDER THIS
TITLE, AND IN EVALUATING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN § 19-108(A) OF THIS TITLE,
THE OFFICE MAY CONSIDER EVIDENCE RELATING TO ACTS OR OMISSIONS THAT
OCCURRED DURING OR PRIOR TO THE 5 YEAR PERIOD BEFORE THE COMPLAINT WAS
FILED
(1) THE OFFICE MAY INVESTIGATE AND ADJUDICATE A CLAIM OF
DISCRIMINATION UNDER THIS TITLE ONLY IF THE CLAIM ALLEGES THAT; (I) THE DISCRIMINATION WAS COMMITTED BY A BUSINESS ENTITY
WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD SET FORTH IN § 19-101(C) OF THIS TITLE; AND (II) THE DISCRIMINATION OCCURRED IN THE STATE. (2) DISCRIMINATION IS DEEMED TO HAVE OCCURRED IN THE STATE
ONLY IF; (I) EACH PARTY OPERATED A PLACE OF BUSINESS IN, OR RESIDED
IN, THE STATE AT THE TIME OF THE DISCRIMINATION; OR (II) THE DISCRIMINATORY ACT WAS COMMITTED IN THE STATE. 19-108. (A) IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH AN
INVESTIGATION AND IN MAKING FINDINGS, THE OFFICE MAY CONSIDER ANY
EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT OR THE RESPONDENT BUSINESS
ENTITY AS TO THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: (1)      WHETHER THERE WAS AN INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE ON THE PART
OF THE RESPONDENT BUSINESS FIRM; (2)      WHETHER THERE WAS A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF
DISCRIMINATION ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT BUSINESS ENTITY; (3)      ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT BUSINESS ENTITY TO
REMEDY THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION; (4)      THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY PRIOR ATTEMPTS BY THE
RESPONDENT BUSINESS ENTITY TO REMEDY THE DISCRIMINATION; (5)      WHETHER THE RESPONDENT BUSINESS ENTITY HAS PROCURED
GOODS OR SERVICES FROM OR OTHERWISE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS WITH PERSONS
OR ENTITIES OF THE SAME PROTECTED CLASS AS THE COMPLAINANT TO AN EXTENT
- 1588 -


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Session Laws, 2006
Volume 750, Page 1588   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 11, 2023
Maryland State Archives