Few employers admit to firing someone because of age, race, pregnancy, or disability. The reason on paper is usually performance. When that explanation is false, the law calls it pretext: a stated reason offered to hide the real one. Proving pretext is central to most discrimination cases handled by Wrongful Termination Lawyers Maryland. Under the framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), which Maryland courts also apply to state claims, the employer offers a legitimate reason and the employee then shows that reason isn’t believable. Below are six patterns that often reveal a pretextual performance claim, followed by Annapolis-area law offices you can contact.
How can you tell if “poor performance” is really discrimination?
1. Did the performance problems start right after a protected event?
Criticism that begins after you announce a pregnancy, disclose a disability, request an accommodation, or mention your age is a common sign of pretext. The contrast matters most when your earlier record was solid. An employee with four years of positive reviews who receives three written warnings within two months of requesting an ADA accommodation has a timeline worth examining. Maryland does not require private employers to share personnel files, so save your reviews and emails while you still have access.
2. Are other employees held to a different standard?
Uneven enforcement is one of the strongest forms of evidence in a discrimination case. Courts look for comparators, meaning coworkers who are similarly situated: same supervisor, same standards, similar conduct. If a younger coworker missed the same sales target without discipline, or a colleague of a different race kept their job after a comparable error, that difference can undercut the employer’s explanation.
3. Is the criticism vague or based on “fit”?
Subjective reasons are easier to use as cover than measurable ones. Feedback about “attitude,” “energy,” “communication style,” or “culture fit” gives little that can be tested. Courts tend to look harder at subjective criteria when the person evaluated belongs to a protected group. Comments about needing “fresh perspectives” or someone “more current,” for example, have been treated as evidence in age discrimination cases. Ask your employer for specific examples in writing whenever feedback stays general.
4. Were you put on a performance plan designed to fail?
A performance improvement plan (PIP) is a written plan that sets goals and a deadline for meeting them. Some PIPs are genuine. Others are built to end in termination. Warning signs include a 30-day window for goals that took coworkers a full quarter, targets that shift partway through, no training or support, and a manager who never schedules the check-ins the plan requires. Keep a dated record of each meeting and each goal you completed.
5. Did a biased supervisor influence someone else’s decision?
An employer can be liable even when the final decision-maker had no discriminatory intent. In Staub v. Proctor Hospital (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed what is known as the “cat’s paw” theory: a biased supervisor who feeds false or slanted information to a neutral decision-maker can make the employer responsible for the outcome. If the manager who made derogatory remarks also wrote the reports HR relied on, that link matters.
6. Does the paperwork tell a consistent story?
Inconsistent or after-the-fact documentation weakens an employer’s case. Watch for warnings dated after the termination decision was made, reasons that change between the termination meeting and the separation letter, or a performance explanation that appears for the first time in the employer’s response to your agency charge. In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (2000), the Supreme Court held that a jury may infer discrimination when an employer’s stated reason is shown to be false.
Timing still controls these claims. In Maryland, a discrimination charge generally must be filed with the EEOC or the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights within 300 days of the termination.
Which Annapolis-area law offices can you contact?
- The Mundaca Law Firm
- Ortega Law, LLC
- Maronick Law LLC
- Scott MacMullan Law, LLC
- The Law Office of Caroline Norman Frost
1. The Mundaca Law Firm: Wrongful Termination Lawyers Maryland
Francisco E. Mundaca, Esq., Founding Partner, leads The Mundaca Law Firm, which represents Maryland employees from its Annapolis office. The firm handles discrimination claims involving race, age, disability, and pregnancy or breastfeeding, including cases where a performance explanation may be pretext. It also reviews severance offers presented alongside or after a PIP, and it represents federal sector employees in the EEO process.
2. Ortega Law, LLC
A law firm on Ritchie Highway in Pasadena. Contact the office to ask whether it handles employment matters.
3. Maronick Law LLC
A multi-attorney firm based in Glen Burnie. Reach out directly to confirm which cases it accepts.
4. Scott MacMullan Law, LLC
A law practice on Cathedral Street in downtown Annapolis. Ask about its practice areas before scheduling a meeting.
5. The Law Office of Caroline Norman Frost
A law office on Ritchie Highway in Glen Burnie. Check with the office on whether your situation fits its practice.
What should you do if your firing was blamed on performance?
A performance explanation is where a discrimination case begins, not where it ends. Save your past reviews, any PIP documents, emails about your work, and notes on how coworkers were treated. When you meet with Wrongful Termination Lawyers Maryland employees can consult, that record helps show whether the stated reason holds up. If you received a severance offer, have it reviewed before you sign.
