• Thank you for all your help on [AW's] case. Without you, nothing would have come from it. We will be sending people your way. We hope that we will not need your help again, but if we do you will be hearing from us.”

    - J.W., East Machias.
  • We appreciate everything you have done for us. You made this whole process much easier on [P.C.] and me. Words cannot express our gratitude.”

    - K.C., Sanford.
  • Thank you for your efforts and hard work in resolving my case. Your leadership and initiatives were outstanding. I felt truly represented, respected and was treated with honesty and integrity. We are grateful for a positive result and grateful for the excellent teamwork!”

    - L.D., Portland.
  • I want to thank you and your staff for all you and they did. The professional and compassionate way my case was handled is greatly appreciated. It was a pleasure to do business with your firm and if the need ever arises I will be back in touch. Thank you again.”

    - M.H., Bangor.
Published on:

Earlier this week a new Maine law went into effect that will allow employers to employ more 14- and 15-year old kids. According to a press release from the Maine Department of Labor, the new law “amends laws relating to minors 14 and 15 years of age to allow them to work in bowling alleys, movie theaters and permanent amusement parks, and to clarify their employment in bakeries, hotels and rooming houses—opening more occupations and broadening the things they can do.”

While a job can certainly benefit a teenager, employing children can create problems with workplace harassment. It has been well documented that workplaces with a lot of younger workers are more likely to experience problems with workplace harassment.   Last year the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a report from a Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. The EEOC’s Task Force studied, among other things, factors that increase the risk that workplace harassment will occur—one of those risk factors is the presence of many young workers.

According to the EEOC’s Task Force, “workplaces with many teenagers and young adults may raise the risk for harassment. Workers in their first or second jobs may be less aware of laws and workplace norms – i.e., what is and is not appropriate behavior in the workplace. Young workers who engage in harassment may lack the maturity to understand or care about consequences. Young workers who are the targets of harassment may lack the self-confidence to resist unwelcome overtures or challenge conduct that makes them uncomfortable. Finally, young workers who are in unskilled or precarious jobs may be more susceptible to being taken advantage of by coworkers or superiors, particularly those who may be older and more established in their positions.”

Published on:

We previously reported on a bill that the Maine legislature was considering which would help address the gender pay gap.  That bill passed the legislature but Governor LePage has vetoed it.  As our previous post explained, this new law would help prevent victims of pay discrimination from continuing to suffer the effects of that discrimination when they move from one job to another.  It would also help victims of pay discrimination to discover their employers’ discriminatory practices.

“Workers should be paid a market-based salary that reflects their education, experience, qualifications, credentials and work ethic, regardless of whether a previous job underpaid them because of their gender — or any other reason,” Senator Cathy Breen (D-Falmouth) said. “If this bill becomes law, it will be a victory not only for the hundreds of thousands of Maine women who are underpaid, but for all workers that deserve fair compensation.”

Governor LePage’s veto statement focused on the part of the bill that would have prohibited employers from asking prospective employees to disclose their pay history during negotiations over their starting salary.  Governor LePage said, among other things, that “Maine’s employers are often their own HR departments.  Adding another law restricting a legitimate business practice places yet another burden on our employers.  If an employer cannot ask, they may end up making even lower offers than they normally would, resulting in lower wages.”

Published on:

After Maine recently passed an increase to the minimum wage, many Maine restaurant workers who depend on tips voiced serious concerns. They believed that the increased minimum wage would actually cause them to make less money. They feared that restaurant owners would raise prices and cut workers’ shifts. Some said that customers had begun to tip less because the customers assumed that the increased minimum wage made tips less important to servers. Due to these concerns, the Maine legislature recently passed a bill that reversed the increase in minimum wage that employers must pay to tipped workers and the Governor has signed that bill.

If the minimum wage increase for tipped workers had not been reversed, employers of tipped workers would have went from paying tipped workers a minimum wage of $3.75/hour in 2016 to $12/hour by 2024.  Employers of tipped workers will have to pay workers a minimum of $5/hour this year but in future years they will only have to pay them half of the minimum wage that non-tipped workers must receive.  What will not change is that if tips do not result in a tipped worker making at least the same minimum wage as a non-tipped worker, the employer of the tipped worker will have to make up the difference.

One of the Maine restaurant workers who organized the movement to reverse the rise in the minimum wage for tipped workers was Jason Buckwalter. He is now saying that he wants to take this movement to other places in the country where the minimum wages of tipped workers may be raised or have already been raised. But those who advocate for a higher minimum wage for restaurant workers say that they disagree with Buckwalter and others in his camp. “We do not believe what we see in Maine is representative of the majority of workers,” said Dave Palmer, the managing director of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, a national group of low-wage restaurant workers.

Published on:

The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) has released a report showing the results of a survey that it conducted of transgender Mainers.  The survey showed what many already, intuitively, knew:  transgender Mainers face frequent and extreme amounts of discrimination.

According to the NCTE report:

  • 8% of respondents who have ever been employed reported losing a job in their lifetime because of their gender identity or expression.
Published on:

The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) turned 50 years old this month.  Congress enacted the ADEA, 50 years ago, to address the following stated problems:

(1) in the face of rising productivity and affluence, older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs;

(2) the setting of arbitrary age limits regardless of potential for job performance has become a common practice, and certain otherwise desirable practices may work to the disadvantage of older persons;

Published on:

In response to complaints of systemic problems with harassment and discrimination, Uber has fired 20 employees, including some senior executives.  The company has also disciplined others and is still investigating additional complaints.  This is a major shakeup at Uber, a ride sharing service based in California, that comes shortly after the company received a report from a team of lawyers who reviewed its workplace climate.

Uber hired this team of lawyers, led by former Attorney General Eric Holder, amid complaints from some Uber employees that the company prized aggressive growth so much that it would look the other way when some employees engaged in harassment or discrimination.  Uber hired another law firm, Perkins Coie, to assist with the problem as well and that firm has been investigating individuals’ complaints. Perkins Coie has investigated 215 complaints and about 100 of those resulted in actions taken against employees for sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination.  There are still complaints under investigation. 

The problems at Uber are not unique to Uber.  Harassment, in particular, is an epidemic in American workplaces.  Far too many workers face problems with sexual harassment, racial harassment, and other forms of unlawful harassment.  As we’ve previously reported, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) formed a task force that heard from a variety of experts on how to address this epidemic.  The EEOC issued a report that provides a variety of recommendations for preventing harassment and changing workplace cultures that permit harassment to occur. 

Published on:

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in New York, has decided that the full court—all eleven active judges—will consider whether sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act. If the full Second Circuit decides that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, it will have to overrule a prior Second Circuit decision that held the opposite.

Normally, panels of three appellate judges decide cases but those three-judge panels are required to follow precedent. They cannot deviate from the decisions that their court reached in earlier cases. When the full appellate court considers a case, however, it can overrule prior precedents and a decision by the full court to hear a case signals that some judges want to consider overruling past precedent.

Federal appeals courts rarely decide to have the full court consider cases. This type of full-court review, sometimes called “en banc review,” is exceedingly rare in the Second Circuit. Thus, the Second Circuit’s decision to hear this case en banc is noteworthy in itself. The Second Circuit, however, is following the lead of the Seventh Circuit which earlier this year ruled en banc that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination.

Published on:

In an important decision for transportation workers, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a trucking company cannot use the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to force its truckers to bring their claims against the company in arbitration. As we have previously discussed, companies often force workers to sign arbitration agreements because the arbitration system is stacked in those companies’ favor. When workers forced to sign one of these arbitration agreements file their claims in court, instead of in arbitration, companies often rely on the FAA to get the cases thrown out of court and into arbitration. But in this case, the First Circuit held that the FAA did not apply.

This case involved a class of truck drivers who sued New Prime, Inc. for minimum wage violations. New Prime allegedly engaged in a practice of encouraging truck drivers to become “independent contractors” instead of employees of the company. One of the issues in this case is whether the truck drivers were, actually, independent contractors or were employees. If they were employees, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) would entitle them to minimum wage; but if they were independent contractors, FLSA would not cover them.

The FAA does not apply in cases involving transportation workers and, thus, companies cannot use the FAA to force cases brought by transportation workers into arbitration. New Prime argued that the exemption for transportation workers only applies to cases involving employees and does not apply to cases involving independent contractors. New Prime also argued that an arbitrator, instead of a court, should decide whether the FAA applied to this case. The First Circuited rejected both of New Prime’s arguments.

Published on:

We previously reported on the Maine legislature’s consideration of a bill intended to lessen the gender pay gap in Maine. That bill, entitled “An Act Regarding Pay Equality,” has now received support from the majority of the legislature’s Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee. It will now head to the Maine Senate for a vote.

The Act Regarding Pay Equality would strengthen the law against pay discrimination in two important ways. First, the bill would state that employers may not try to obtain information about a prospective employee’s wage history until after offering a compensation package to the prospective employee. As we previously explained, this part of the bill would help to prevent the effects of wage discrimination from following an employee from one job to another. Second, the bill would require employers to allow employees to share information about their own wages and other employees’ wages. This part of the bill is important because, without information about the wages other employees make, workers often do not know that they are victims of pay discrimination. In some situations it is already illegal for employers to prohibit the sharing of wage information but this bill would expand that prohibition and provide extra protection for workers.

Among New England states, Maine has the second highest gender pay gap. According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, in Maine women earn 22% less than men. Only New Hampshire has a bigger gender pay gap in New England. As we previously reported, other states have enacted legislation similar to this bill. Given the large gender pay gap in Maine, as compared to other New England states, it makes sense to pass legislation that could decrease the gap.

Published on:

Yesterday, the Maine Employee Rights Group (“MERG”) secured another victory for our client in a federal case against Woodlands Senior Living of Brewer (“Woodlands”). As we previously reported, a Bangor jury found that Woodlands unlawfully discriminated against our client because she needed medical leave for a disability. The jury awarded our client $15,000 in back pay and, yesterday, the judge awarded our client an additional $15,000 plus interest (for a total of $30,000 plus interest) because Woodlands failed to prove that it acted in good faith when it violated our client’s rights.

In addition to awarding our client another $15,000, plus interest, the judge ordered Woodlands to change our client’s personnel records so that they indicate that Woodlands unlawfully terminated her for discriminatory reasons. The judge also ordered Woodlands to submit documentation proving that it trained its managers on the law and Woodlands’ policies regarding disability discrimination and employee family medical leave entitlements.

Because MERG prevailed in this case, Woodlands will also be required to pay attorney fees to MERG for our work on this case. The court has not yet issued a ruling on the amount of attorney fees that Woodlands will have to pay MERG.