PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1400

KRISHNA P. SHARMA POUDEL; BINOD DHAKAL,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

MID ATLANTIC PROFESSIONALS, INC., d/b/a SSI,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:21-cv-01124-TDC)

Argued: December 6, 2023 Decided: August 15, 2024

Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Benjamin wrote the opinion, in which Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum joined.

ARGUED: Mariusz Kurzyna, ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellants. Cynthia Cook Robertson, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Laura Freid-Studlo, Washington, D.C., Richard B. Oliver, Stacie D. Yee, PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1400 Doc: 41 Filed: 08/15/2024 Pg: 2 of 11

DEANDREA GIST BENJAMIN, Circuit Judge:

Krishna P. Sharma Poudel and Binod Dhakal (together, “Appellants”) worked for

Appellee Mid Atlantic Professionals, Inc. (“MAPI”) as Nepalese-English interpreters,

“serving the needs of the U.S. Department of State . . . in Kabul, Afghanistan.” J.A. 005.

After Appellants’ employment ended, they filed the present suit, alleging MAPI failed to

pay them all contracted-for and promised wages. MAPI subsequently filed a motion to

dismiss.

For the reasons outlined below, we hold that the district court was correct to grant

MAPI’s motion to dismiss and therefore affirm.

I.

A. 1

Appellant Poudel worked for MAPI from 2017 to 2021 and Appellant Dhakal

worked for MAPI from 2017 to 2019. Poudel signed an employment agreement from her

residence in Virginia and Dhakal did the same from his residence in North Carolina. MAPI

is domiciled in Maryland and the company executed the employment agreements in

Maryland. All of Appellants’ work was performed in Afghanistan.

The employment agreements initially provided for pay at $48 per hour, an expenses

per diem, annual paid leave, and reimbursement for an annual trip home. MAPI also

promised signing bonuses in the amount of $10,000. The employment agreements each

1 The following facts are taken from Appellants’ amended complaint.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1400 Doc: 41 Filed: 08/15/2024 Pg: 3 of 11

contained a choice-of-law provision, where any contract dispute would be settled under

Maryland law. 2 In 2019, MAPI altered the terms of employment and reduced Appellants’

hourly rate of pay, per diem allowance, and annual paid leave. As well, Appellants were

never reimbursed for their annual trips home, nor were they paid overtime in accordance

with Maryland law.

B.

Appellants filed their complaint in the United States District Court for the District

of Maryland. They brought two causes of action under the Maryland Labor and

Employment Article—a violation of the Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”) and a violation

of the Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”) (collectively, “Wage Laws”). In

sum, Appellants allege that MAPI

Click Here to Read the rest of this document