Maine Employment Lawyer Blog

On August 29, 2011, the Kennebec County Superior Court ruled in favor of the Maine State Nurses Association (MSNA) and affirmed an arbitration award in favor of MSNA member Krista McCormick. Ms. McCormick worked as a nurse at Down East Community Hospital (DECH) until she was terminated on September 11, 2009. In accordance with MSNA's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with DECH, MSNA filed a grievance on behalf of Ms. McCormick contesting the termination. The grievance process led to an arbitration where a neutral arbitrator, who serves a role similar to a judge, found that DECH terminated Ms. McCormick without just cause in violation of the CBA. Consequently, the arbitrator ordered DECH to reinstate Ms. McCormick and compensate her for lost wages and benefits. This would've been a relatively straightforward case except for the fact that a court-appointed receiver, Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems (EMHS), was in control of DECH at the time of Ms. McCormick's termination.

After the arbitrator ruled in favor of MSNA and Ms. McCormick, EMHS refused to abide by the arbitrator's decision. So, MSNA had to file a lawsuit in court to enforce the arbitrator's decision. EMHS argued that the court could not enforce the arbitrator's decision against DECH because EMHS was the entity that terminated Ms. McCormick, not DECH. EMHS further argued that the court could not enforce the arbitrator's decision against it because, as a court-appointed receiver, it was immune from MSNA's lawsuit.

If EMHS had prevailed with its arguments, it would have deprived Ms. McCormick of any remedy for her wrongful termination. After thoroughly evaluating the various complex legal arguments that EMHS made, and MSNA made in response, the court rejected EMHS's position and ruled in favor of MSNA and Ms. McCormick.

The Maine Employee Rights Group represented MSNA in this case.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) has found that Robert Mulligan, the state's chief justice for administration and management, refused to promote Jane McSweeney to the position of operations and maintenance supervisor with the Plymouth District Court because of her sex. MCAD believed that Mulligan made the decision based on stereotypes about female managers. A three-member hiring panel for the state's trial court system determined that McSweeney was the top candidate for the job. Mulligan rejected that determination and, instead, hired a man who was third on the hiring panel's list. MCAD awarded McSweeney $206,527.36 to compensate her for damages she suffered due to Mulligan's discrimination.

It is not uncommon for women to run into "glass ceilings" when they attempt to gain promotions. If you are a woman and you believe you have run into a glass ceiling at work due to your sex, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Maine Employee Rights Group is currently representing two whistleblowers in a lawsuit against Alutiiq, LLC and some related companies (collectively referred to here as Alutiiq). Alutiiq entered into a contract with the Navy and began to provide security services at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY) in 2009. Shortly after, Alutiiq employees Craig Manfield and Janice Hendricks, the two whistleblowers who have brought this lawsuit, began to oppose Alutiiq's unlawful activity.

Among other things, Mr. Manfield opposed Alutiiq's attempts to bring firearms and ammunition onto PNSY grounds without proper authorization. He later complained about the fact that Alutiiq armed security guards with ammunition that was not as lethal as the Navy contract required. He also complained about shoddy gear which negatively impacted the safety of him and his co-workers.

Ms. Hendricks, among other things, opposed Alutiiq's failure to pay employees for overtime they worked. Ms. Hendricks, a gay woman, also experienced discrimination because of her sex and/or sexual orientation. She reported this discrimination to the company as well.

Due to their opposition to Alutiiq's unlawful activity, and in Ms. Hendricks' case her sex and/or sexual orientation, Alutiiq took adverse actions against them. Among other discriminatory and retaliatory acts, Alutiiq fired Mr. Manfield and disciplined Ms. Hendricks for illegitimate reasons.

The Maine Employee Rights Group is currently representing a whistleblower in a lawsuit against Praxair, Inc., one of its subsidiaries, and a company it acquired named Sermatech International. The whistleblower, Roger Lehoux, worked for Sermatech in Biddeford before Praxair acquired it.

While employed at Sermatech, Mr. Lehoux worked on the airplane parts that the company manufactured. His job was plasma sprayer. Mr. Lehoux repeatedly complained about management cutting corners to increase production at the expense of safety. For instance, he opposed the practice of cutting pieces off of blasting cabinets to increase production. Silica dust leaked out of the blasting cabinets because these pieces were cut off of them. Employees had to inhale this dust and it also collected on the airplane parts. Due to the dust, the anti-corrosive paint did not properly adhere to the parts. Through its corner cutting, the company put employee health in danger, violated OSHA regulations, and violated FAA regulations.

The lawsuit alleges that Sermatech fired Mr. Lehoux because of his repeated complaints about the company's unlawful and unsafe practices. Sermatech claimed that it "laid off" Mr. Lehoux due to lack of work. This alleged layoff resulted in one person losing his job--Mr. Lehoux. The "layoff" occurred less than 2 weeks after Mr. Lehoux spoke up about his safety concerns during a training session held to address the fact that some airplane parts were failing inspection and being sent back to the company. Sermatech's claim that there was a lack of work was not true. At the time of his "layoff" there was a back log of work in Mr. Lehoux's department and employees from other areas in the facility had to come in to help out because of the back log.

After it fired him, Mr. Lehoux filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). An OSHA investigator went to the Biddeford facility and found four "serious" violations of employee health and safety regulations. He also found that some of the unsafe corner cutting Mr. Lehoux complained about was still ongoing.

On July 27, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over most New England states, including Maine, issued a decision in Haggins v. Verizon New England, Inc. This case involves a challenge to Verizon's use of cell phones with GPS tracking capability to track its field technicians. The company used GPS, in part, because it did not trust that its employees were always where they were supposed to be. The field technicians, who were represented by a union, claimed that Verizon violated their privacy rights when it tracked them with GPS. The First Circuit dismissed the technicians' lawsuit under a federal law that prohibits these types of lawsuits in certain circumstances when the employees have a collective bargaining agreement with the employer.

Employees, particularly in the private sector, are often surprised to learn that they have very few privacy rights in the workplace. If you believe that your employer has violated your privacy rights, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.