Maine Employment Lawyer Blog

On January 27, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employee may not take unpaid leave from work to care for a family member so that he can undergo religious healing rituals. A former employee of the Lahey Clinic, Marial Lucia Tayag, brought the case. The Lahey Clinic fired Mrs. Tayag because she took leave from work to care for her chronically ill husband while they went on a healing pilgrimage to a Catholic church in the Philippines. Mrs. Tayag's husband suffers from serious medical conditions, including gout, chronic liver and heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and kidney problems that led to a transplant in 2000. While in the Philippines they prayed and met with priests and other pilgrims.

Mrs. Tayag argued that the Lahey Clinic violated her rights under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) because she was entitled to take leave to care for her husband while they were on their healing pilgrimage. The First Circuit (which is the federal appellate court for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico) rejected Mrs. Tayag's argument. It held that the FMLA did not protect Mrs. Tayag because her husband did not receive medical care from a "health care provider," as that term is defined in the FMLA, during their healing pilgrimage. The court noted that federal regulations permit Christian Scientists to take FMLA leave for religious healing but did not extend that regulation to apply to Catholics.

The FMLA and the regulations that accompany it are sometimes difficult to navigate. If you are not sure whether your employer has violated your rights under the FMLA, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to find out.

On January 24, 2011, the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) unanimously found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Dudley's Diner discriminated against Kelly Chipman because of her vision problems. The Diner, located in Belfast, Maine, fired Ms. Chipman on March 5, 2009 because of her vision problems. Dudley's Diner argued that Ms. Chipman's vision problems made her unsafe to carry coffee and other hot beverages. The MHRC found that Dudley's Diner made this decision based on unproven assumptions about Ms. Chipman's disability. Under the Maine Human Rights Act, an employer must perform an individualized assessment of a person with a disability to determine if she is actually unable to perform her job safely before it can terminate her for safety reasons.

On January 19, 2011, Judge Woodcock, of the U.S. District Court in Bangor, ruled that a jury could reasonably find that Crisis & Counseling Centers, Inc. fired a whistleblower named Ellen Gammon because she blew the whistle on Crisis & Counseling's allegedly illegal and unsafe business practices.

Crisis & Counseling provides counseling services, crisis interventions, substance abuse counseling, and related educational services for clients and families at its residential and outpatient crisis facilities. Ms. Gammon worked for Crisis & Counseling as a crisis worker in its mobile crisis unit. The mobile crisis unit provided 24-hour telephone and walk-in counseling services as well as off-site mental health assessments and evaluations, which often occurred in clients' homes.

Ms. Gammon claims that she opposed Crisis & Counseling's fraudulent practice of billing clients for work it did not do. She also claims that she opposed unsafe practices such as ignoring safety concerns about certain clients. Judge Woodcock held that there was enough evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that Crisis & Counseling fired Ms. Gammon because of her opposition to these, and other, illegal and/or unsafe activities. Crisis & Counseling denies these allegations. As such, a jury will likely have to decide what actually happened.

Before Ms. Gammon filed this case in court, she brought it before the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC). The MHRC investigated Ms. Gammon's case and found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Crisis & Counseling fired her because she blew the whistle on these allegedly illegal and/or unsafe practices.

The Maine Legislature is looking for ways to reduce the length of time it takes for the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) to investigate discrimination complaints. The MHRC is the state agency that investigates complaints of unlawful discrimination in employment as well as other settings. The Legislature has asked the MHRC to provide it with ideas on how to reduce the length of time it takes to investigate complaints. The MHRC recently held a meeting open to the public on this topic.

The Legislature's call to reduce the amount of time it takes the MHRC to investigate complaints of employment discrimination comes amidst a nationwide surge in employment discrimination complaints. According to a recent report from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), last year it received more complaints of employment discrimination than at any time in its 45 year history. Many believe high unemployment is a reason for the increase. "I think when people are less likely to find a new job, they're more inclined to file a charge of discrimination," EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser said. "Whereas in the past they might just walk off and go to another job, nowadays they can't really do that, because there are no jobs."

A federal judge in Philadelphia recently decided that a jury will decide this question in a case that pits a former television news anchor against the television station that fired him. Fox 29 fired news anchor Tom Burlington because Mr. Burlington used the n-word during a discussion with his co-workers.

Mr. Burlington, who is white, claims that Fox 29 unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race. He claims that Fox 29 allowed black employees to use the n-word. He believes Fox 29 discriminated against him because of his race. He argues that if he had been black, Fox 29 would not have fired him for his use of the n-word. Fox 29 argues that Mr. Burlington's comparison between his use of the n-word and black employees' use of the n-word ignores the fact that his use of the n-word offended some black employees; whereas no one took offense when the black employees used the n-word. Fox 29 also argues that it had the right to fire Mr. Burlington because his use of the n-word caused the station to suffer bad publicity. A jury will have to decide who is right.

This case illustrates why it is a bad idea for any employee to use the n-word at work, no matter what his race is. While you may not intend to offend anyone when you use the word, someone may take offense. If you work in a place where people use the n-word, and you want to do something to change that practice, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer first.