Maine Employment Lawyer Blog

The American Jobs Act, a bill that President Obama is urging Congress to pass, would prohibit certain employers from discriminating against unemployed applicants. Under the American Jobs Act, it would be an "unlawful employment practice" if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person "because of the individual's status as unemployed." Detractors of the bill argue that it will open the door to "nuisance lawsuits." Supporters of the bill hail the protections against unemployment discrimination as a common sense way to protect people who have been unemployed a long time due to no fault of their own from unfair discrimination.

The District of Columbia and Chicago are also considering passing laws that prohibit unemployment discrimination. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed a similar bill into law earlier this year that prohibits employers from posting job advertisements which state that unemployed people may not apply.

Matthew Doucette, a 29 year-old Sysco warehouse worker, injured his back in April 2004. He was on light duty for two weeks but lost no earnings as a result of the injury. Sysco terminated his employment for reasons unrelated to his injury in May 2004 and Doucette had no further problems with his back until 2008, when he reinjured it while working for a different employer. In January 2009, Doucette filed a petition seeking compensation from his April 2004 date of injury to the present and continuing. The hearing officer found that Doucette was entitled to the protection of the Act for the 2004 injury even though he lost no earnings because of it. Due to a procedural glitch, the insurance company failed to file the Notice of Controversy contesting the claim within the required 14 day time period. The insurance company filed the Notice on the morning of the 15th day. The hearing officer found that the insurance company had violated the "14 day rule" requiring insurance companies to pay or contest claims within 14 days and ordered the insurance company to pay total incapacity benefits from the original date of injury, April 2004, forward, even though Doucette lost no earnings as a result of that injury. The result was a $140,000 award to Doucette. The Court acknowledged that while the result may be unfair to the insurance company, it had no authority to void the penalty.

On September 16, 2011, federal judge D. Brock Hornby granted a motion for conditional certification of a collective action against FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (Fed Ex) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A group of Fed Ex drivers brought this case against Fed Ex because they claim that Fed Ex misclassified them as "independent contractors" instead of employees and, consequently, failed to pay them overtime. In granting the motion for conditional certification, Judge Hornby found that the drivers who brought the case held similar jobs and suffered from the same allegedly unlawful policy. Conditional certification is a procedural hurdle that the drivers had to overcome before they could begin to send notices to other drivers who may be eligible to join the lawsuit against Fed Ex.

Many employers misclassify employees as independent contractors and, as a result, fail to respect these misclassified employees' rights to overtime pay and other workplace protections. If your employer classifies you as an independent contractor but you believe that your employment relationship is more like that of an employee, you should call an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

Today, the U.S. District Court in Portland, Maine denied Lincare, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a claim of retaliation under the False Claims Act (FCA). The anti-retaliation provisions of the FCA protect whistleblowers from retaliation when they "pursue, investigate, or contribute to an action exposing fraud against the [federal] government."

Former Lincare employee Adam Jewell filed his FCA retaliation claim after Lincare terminated his employment. Mr. Jewell's lawsuit alleges that Lincare terminated his employment because he reported to Lincare that his immediate supervisor was forging signatures on documents and backdating documents that Lincare submitted to the government for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. Lincare argued that terminating an employee for blowing the whistle on his supervisor's practice of forging and backdating Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement documents does not violate the FCA. The Court rejected this argument. It held that Lincare could not terminate Mr. Jewel for reporting his supervisor because his reports "concerned Lincare's fraudulent billing practices."

Attorneys Peter Thompson, Chad T. Hansen, and Allison Gray, of the Maine Employee Rights Group, represent Mr. Jewell in this lawsuit.

The Maine Employee Rights Group is currently pursuing a lawsuit which alleges that MaineGeneral unlawfully discriminated against Adela Blethen because of her race, national origin, color, and her complaints about racial harassment. Ms. Blethen, a Hispanic woman from Hallowell, Maine, worked for MaineGeneral as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) from June 2006 until November 2009. Ms. Blethen worked in the Gray Birch facility, where residents received long term care. Ms. Blethen's lawsuit alleges that MaineGeneral discriminated and retaliated against her after she reported to MaineGeneral that residents were calling her derogatory, racist names like "black [expletive]" and "that Mexican."