By AJ Esral, Esq.
Introduction
Employers in Maryland and Washington, D.C. face complex legal challenges—especially when employee conduct outside the workplace begins to affect the workplace itself.
One of the most common questions is:
Can you discipline or terminate an employee for behavior that happens off duty?
A Real-World Scenario
Imagine this:
A warehouse supervisor disciplines an employee for repeated safety violations and insubordination. The employee claims unfair treatment and, after an unsuccessful internal complaint, becomes increasingly fixated on the supervisor and a coworker.
One evening, outside of work, the employee encounters the supervisor at a supermarket. The situation escalates quickly—verbal threats turn into physical violence.
By Monday:
- The incident is widely known across the workplace
- Employees feel unsafe
- Management must act quickly
The key question becomes urgent:
👉 Can the company lawfully terminate the employee—even though the conduct occurred off duty?
The Short Answer: Yes (In Most Cases)
In Maryland, the answer is very likely yes.
Maryland is an at-will employment state, meaning employers can terminate employees for almost any reason—so long as it does not violate a clear mandate of public policy.
Courts have emphasized that this exception is narrow, not broad.
This means:
- You do not need proof of a crime
- You do not need a perfectly drafted policy violation
- You do need a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason
Threatening or violent conduct tied to workplace relationships generally meets that standard.
When Off-Duty Conduct Becomes a Workplace Issue
Maryland law does not require misconduct to happen at work to justify discipline.
Instead, the key question is whether there is a connection—or “nexus”—between the conduct and the workplace.
This principle comes from long-standing case law.
The “Nexus” Test
Courts look at whether off-duty conduct is sufficiently connected to the employer’s interest in maintaining a safe and functional workplace.
In Employment Security Board v. LeCates, the court established that the focus is on this connection—not simply where or when the conduct occurred.
This idea was further clarified in Fino v. Maryland Employment Security Board, which made an important distinction:
- Off-duty conduct unrelated to work (e.g., a personal dispute at home) → no workplace nexus
- Off-duty conduct involving coworkers or workplace tensions → clear workplace nexus
Real Legal Applications
Courts have consistently upheld discipline when off-duty conduct directly impacts the workplace:
- Stinson v. Towson Inn Restaurant Corp.
An employee assaulted a coworker after hours over a work-related dispute. The court found this was sufficiently connected to the workplace. - De Amat v. United Natural Foods, Inc.
Employee behavior that caused coworkers to fear for their safety was treated as a legitimate employment concern.
The takeaway is clear:
👉 If off-duty behavior creates fear, disruption, or risk in the workplace, employers can act.
What Employers Should Do
Even when termination is justified, how you act matters.
Employers should:
- Investigate the situation promptly
- Document witness statements
- Preserve evidence (messages, footage, reports)
- Consider interim safety measures
- Ensure decisions are consistent and non-discriminatory
Acting too slowly—or without proper documentation—can weaken your position.
Final Takeaway
Off-duty conduct is not automatically irrelevant.
When that conduct:
- Is rooted in workplace relationships
- Targets coworkers or supervisors
- Disrupts safety or operations
…it becomes a legitimate business concern.
In those cases, Maryland law gives employers broad authority to act decisively.
Sometimes, termination is not only lawful—it is the most responsible course of action.
How Luchansky Law Can Help
Luchansky Law helps employers make defensible, strategic decisions—often under urgent circumstances—before situations escalate.
