Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. § 3-401

Section 3-401’s Maryland wage-and-hour protections apply to workers who are employees rather than independent contractors, with employee status determined by the economic realities of the relationship.

McFeeley v. Jackson Street Entertainment · filed 2016-06-08

We agree with the district court that, based on the totality of the circumstances presented here, the dancers at Fuego and Extasy were employees covered by the FLSA and analogous state laws. They were not independent contractors. Because plaintiffs’ claims under Maryland labor laws run parallel to their claims under the FLSA, our analysis of federal law extends as well to the state law claims.

Section 3-401(b) includes as an employer a person who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of another employer with an employee, so the FLSA joint-employment analysis applies to Maryland Wage and Hour Law claims.

Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc. · filed 2017-01-25(b)

Our resolution of the FLSA joint employment question also resolves Plaintiffs’ claims under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, which defines “employer” consistently with the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203(d) (defining employer as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee”); Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401(b) (defining “employer” as including “a person who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of another employer with an employee”).

Section 3-401(b)'s definition of “employer” does not include governmental employers for purposes of the MWHL's overtime requirements.

Strange v. Prince George's County, Maryland · filed 2020-07-29(b)

Although Plaintiffs correctly note that the plain language of the applicable definition of “employer” does not foreclose the inclusion of governmental employers, their arguments overlook the fact that another part of the MWHL—not applicable to the overtime pay requirement—expressly includes governmental employers within its reach. Section 3-413 requires employers to pay at or above applicable minimum wage requirements and, in so doing, provides that for purposes of that section only, “‘Employer’ includes a governmental unit.” Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-413(a)(2). If the MWHL’s general definition of employer were read to include governmental employers, then this explicit inclusion of “governmental unit” within the definition of employer would be redundant. ... In line with these decisions, and based on the analysis set forth above, this Court finds that the County is not covered by the provisions of the MWHL and MWPCL relating to overtime requirements.

Section 3-401(a) defines an employer under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law the same way as the FLSA, and employer status is determined using the economic-realities test.

Lee v. Solar Energy World, LLC · filed 2020-09-30(a)

The MWHL provides the same definition. Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401(a). Accordingly, courts apply the same analysis when considering whether a party is an “employer” under the FLSA and MWHL.

Section 3-401(b) defines an employer to include any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.

Aguilar v. David E. Harvey Builders, Inc. · filed 2023-10-31(b)

An employer is defined under the FLSA and Maryland law to “include[e] any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(d), (e); Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-401(b), 3-501(b).

Section 3-401's definition of employer covers corporate entities that hire a worker through their principals.

Portillo v. H Restaurant and Night Club, LLC · filed 2024-03-25

Wheaton Lounge and El Tipico, the corporate entities which hired Portillo through their principals Reyes and Lopez, are each considered an “employer” under the broad definition of the statute.

Section 3-401’s definition of employer is analogous to the FLSA’s and differs from the definitions in Maryland’s Workplace Fraud Act and Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Marlon Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC · filed 2017-01-25

In fact, it is the Workplace Fraud Act and Wage Payment and Collection Law that share a substantially similar definition, which diverges slightly from the definitions included in the FLSA and the analogous Wage and Hour Law.

Section 3-401 permits employees to pursue Maryland wage-and-hour overtime claims alongside FLSA claims for the same overtime violation.

Jones v. Fidelity Resources, Incorporated · filed 2019-08-30

Unanimous federal court authority forecloses Fidelity’s position. Fidelity acknowledges that “various decisions of this Court hold that a plaintiff can simultaneously assert claims under both the FLSA and the MWHL for the same overtime violation.” ... Banks adheres to the unanimous view of the federal courts that the FLSA does not preempt the MWHL. ... The Attorney General emphatically did not state that employees may only pursue claims under the FLSA or the MWHL, but not both. ... Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III (ECF No. 82) is DENIED.

Section 3-401(d) defines wages as all compensation due to an employee for employment, supporting an employee’s MWHL action to recover unpaid wages.

Jahn v. Tiffin Holdings, Inc. · filed 2020-03-18(d)

The MWHL is essentially the state equivalent of the FLSA, and permits an employee to bring an action against an employer to recover unpaid wages, defined as “all compensation that is due to an employee for employment.” Md. Code Ann., Lab & Empl. § 3-401(d); see Friolo v. Frankel, 373 Md. 501, 513 (2005) (noting that the MWHL is the “State parallel to the [FSLA]”).

Section 3-401's Maryland Wage and Hour Law does not make on-call sleep time compensable when it is time spent waiting to be engaged, because the MWHL tracks the FLSA on that issue.

Clayton v. Delmarva Community Services, Inc. · filed 2020-03-23

Accordingly, for the same reasons that Plaintiffs’ time is not compensable under the FLSA because it was time spent “waiting to be engaged,” so too is that time not compensable under the MWHL and the MWPCL.

The Maryland Wage and Hour Law treats on-call time like the FLSA: time spent “engaged to be waiting” is compensable, while “waiting to be engaged” and qualifying sleep time are not.

Watkins v. United Needs & Abilities, Inc. · filed 2021-07-12

Just as in Clayton, the Plaintiff’s state law claims in this case under Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401, et seq. (“MWHL”), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-501, et seq. (“MWPCL”) fail for the same reasons as his claims under the FLSA. ... Both the FLSA and Maryland law distinguish between time “engaged to be waiting,” which is compensable, and “waiting to be engaged,” which is not. ... Accordingly, for the reasons detailed above, as the Plaintiff’s time was not compensable under the FLSA because it was time spent “waiting to be engaged” or, alternatively, “sleep time,” so too was that time not compensable under the MWHL and the MWPCL.

The Maryland Wage and Hour Law mirrors the FLSA, and an individual's employer status under the statute is assessed under the economic-realities test.

Carmona v. EBRR Logistics, LLC · filed 2024-03-12

The requirements of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”) mirror those of the FLSA. See Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401 et. seq. “Thus, Plaintiff[’s] claim under the MWHL ‘stands or falls on the success of [his] claim under the FLSA.’” ... An individual’s liability as an “employer” for overtime and minimum wage violations is assessed under the economic realities test, under which courts consider “the ‘economic realities of the individual’s relationship with the putative employee.’” ... As President of EBRR, Bilo received distribution of profits from the company and exercises control over business records. ... Rather, he had a direct interest in the management and success of his company, and he controlled Carmona’s work to a sufficient degree to rise to employer status under the FLSA, MWHL, and MWPCL. ... Bilo and Carmona therefore had an employer-employee relationship under the FLSA, MWHL, and MWCPL.

Section 3-401 requires employers to pay employees the required minimum wage and overtime rate.

Carmona v. EBRR Logistics, LLC · filed 2024-05-10

Defendants failed to pay Carmona a proper minimum wage and overtime rate in violation of the Maryland Wage & Hour Law (“MWHL”), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401.

The Maryland Wage and Hour Law provides a state wage baseline, and its pleading requirements mirror those of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cook v. Superior Assisted Living, LLC · filed 2025-08-11

Ms. Cook alleges that Defendants undercompensated her for her regular and overtime work, see I.A., supra, and thus has pleaded a plausible violation of the FLSA and MWHL.

Section 3-401's employee coverage under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law includes employees regardless of immigration status.

Ruano v. Scratch Kitchen & Bistro, LLC · filed 2024-07-24

The FLSA and MWHL cover all employees regardless of immigration status. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s immigration status is not a basis to dismiss Plaintiff’s overtime wage claims.

Section 3-401(b) treats a person who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of another employer with an employee as an employer under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

Sparks v. BlackDiamond Restaurant LLC · filed 2025-02-10(b)

The MWHL and MWPCL have similar definitions for “employer.” See Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401(b) (defining “employer” under the MWHL as “any person who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of another employer with an employee”); Md. Code. Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-501(b) (defining “employer” under the MWPCL as “any person who employs an individual in the State [of Maryland] or a successor of the person”). ... In sum, I find that BlackDiamond and Mr. Mbah were employers within the meaning of the FLSA, the MWHL, and the MWPCL. Thus, I recommend that the district court so find.

The Maryland Wage and Hour Law parallels the FLSA, so pleading a violation generally follows federal pleading requirements; allegations that an employer paid no direct wages for regular and overtime work can plausibly state a claim.

Marsh v. Bottoms Up Gentlemen's Club, LLC · filed 2025-03-07

“The MWHL is the ‘state parallel’ to the FLSA, and the requirements for pleading a claim under the MWHL ‘mirror those of the federal law.’” ... In support of their FLSA and MWHL claims, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not directly pay them wages as compensation for their regular and overtime work,” see supra I.A., and thus have pleaded a plausible violation of the FLSA and MWHL.