Maine Employment Lawyer Blog

Nurses at Eastern Maine Medical Center ("EMMC") went on strike November 22, 2010 because they and EMMC have not reached agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement. The nurses' union and hospital management cannot reach agreement on the issue of staffing levels. The nurses believe that EMMC has dangerously cut back on staffing levels, putting patients' safety at risk.

"They cut back the total number of nurses, then they cut back the hours," said nurse Bobbi Coombs, who has worked at EMMC for 23 years. "It is getting harder and harder to provide the care we want to give."

While these nurses have chosen collective action to oppose what they believe are threats to patient safety, other nurses oppose threats to patient safety on their own. If you are a nurse and your employer retaliates against you because you expressed concerns about patient safety, either through collective action or on your own, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn about your rights.

Maine's U.S. Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, voted with the rest of the Republican party today to filibuster the Paycheck Fairness Act. The filibuster effectively killed this piece of legislation. Members of Congress drafted the Paycheck Fairness Act to address persistent wage inequality between men and women. Even though women make-up half of the American workforce, they only earn $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would have closed loopholes in the current law which employers exploit. It would have added protections for women and, consequently, deterred employers from discriminating against women. In particular, the Paycheck Fairness Act would have required an employer to state legitimate, non-discriminatory, reasons for its decision to pay women less than men for the same job. It would have prevented employers from discriminating against employees who share information about their salaries--one of the primary ways women discover pay discrimination. It would have also required employers to compensate victims of pay discrimination for all of the losses they suffered.

The opponents to the bill cited problems with it that they claim would have unfairly hurt businesses. Given the fact that employers who pay men and women the same would not have violated the law, this seems dubious.

If you believe that you are a victim of pay discrimination, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer for advice about your legal rights.

On November 9, 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued final regulations to implement the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA). According to the EEOC, "Congress enacted GINA with strong bipartisan support in 2008, in response to concerns that patients would decline to take advantage of the increasing availability of genetic testing out of concern that they could lose their jobs or health insurance if such tests revealed adverse information." Under GINA, employers may not treat employees differently because of such things as genetic test results and family medical history. For instance, an employer cannot refuse to insure an employee because that employee has a family history of heart disease. In a press release, the EEOC stated that "[t]he final regulations provide examples of genetic tests; more fully explain GINA's prohibition against requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information; provide model language employers can use when requesting medical information from employees to avoid acquiring genetic information; and describe how GINA applies to genetic information obtained via electronic media, including websites and social networking sites."

If you believe that your employer has discriminated against you because of your genetic information, you should call an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

On November 1, 2010, the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) found that Central City Sheet Metal, Inc. discriminated against Patrick Michaud because of his disability when it terminated his employment. Central City Sheet Metal terminated Mr. Michaud on November 25, 2008. Prior to his termination, Mr. Michaud had worked for the company seven years as a foreman.

Mr. Michaud has heart problems, diabetes, and pinched nerves in his left hand. He worked through these health issues but he needed accommodations from his employer to do so. One of these accommodations was a 30 pound lifting restriction that Mr. Michaud's doctor imposed on him in January of 2008.

On November 20, 2008, less than a week before his termination, Mr. Michaud claims that he informed his supervisor that he would need to undergo surgery on his hand in the near future. At that time, he was also still working under the 30 pound lifting restriction that his doctor had imposed in January 2008.

On November 25, 2008, Mr. Michaud claims his supervisor asked him to put supplies on top of a trailer in an unsafe manner. According to the MHRC, Mr. Michaud actually would have violated OSHA safety standards if he had done what his supervisor requested. Citing safety concerns, Mr. Michaud claims he told his supervisor that he wanted to perform the task in a different, safer way. Mr. Michaud says that, in addition to his safety concerns, he told his supervisor that he would violate his lifting restriction if he performed the task in the way the supervisor wanted. After Mr. Michaud raised these concerns, his supervisor told him to "go the f--k home."

Mr. Michaud assumed that his supervisor terminated him when he told him to go home. Central City Sheet Metal claims that it did not terminate Mr. Michaud until the next day when he did not show up for work. In any event, there is no dispute that Central City Sheet Metal terminated Mr. Michaud's employment.

The MHRC found that, but for his disabilities and need for accommodations, Central City Sheet Metal would not have terminated Mr. Michaud. In reaching this decision, the MHRC Investigator found that the supervisor was frustrated over the fact that the company had to accommodate Mr. Michaud's disabilities. She also found it noteworthy that the supervisor terminated a long term employee without following the disciplinary steps set forth in the company's own policies.

Now that the MHRC has found reasonable grounds to believe that Central City Sheet Metal discriminated against Mr. Michaud because of his disabilities, the MHRC will likely engage in conciliation efforts with the company in an attempt to resolve Mr. Michaud's complaint. If those conciliation efforts fail, the MHRC and/or Mr. Michaud could file a lawsuit against Central City Sheet Metal.