"ENDA would prohibit most workplaces in the United States, with exemptions for religious institutions, private membership clubs and certain small businesses, from discriminating against potential and existing employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. As strong supporters of this legislation, we urge you to schedule a time for Committee members to consider this proposed legislation."

"ENDA embodies the American ideal of fairness: employees should be judged on their skills and abilities in the workplace, and not on their sexual orientation or gender identity. While some states prohibit public and private employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, recent studies have found evidence of continued widespread employment discrimination against LGBT people. Sadly, it is still legal for businesses in many states to fire someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity."

In response to the Senators' letter, the chairman of the Senate health and labor committee, Senator Harkin, decided to grant their request for a hearing stating as follows:

"Every American deserves an equal opportunity to earn a good living, judged by their talent, ability and qualifications free from discrimination. Workplace discrimination based on an employee's sexual orientation or gender identity is reprehensible and has no place in our nation. This upcoming HELP Committee hearing will provide an excellent opportunity to build on the Committee's previous work and help advance our shared goal of equal rights for all Americans. I am hopeful that working together, we will reach a point where lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons enjoy the same rights and protections, and full equality, as all our fellow Americans."

As required by federal law, Mr. Manske documented many safety problems with UPS trucks that constituted violations of DOT regulations. These deficiencies included, but were not limited to, loose U-bolts; problems with mirrors; the use of a "city truck" on the highway even though it lacked the ability to sufficiently accelerate; a seat that did not adequately protect the driver's head; and shocks so bad that they caused Mr. Manske to bounce up out of his seat and hit his head on the ceiling of the cab. Ultimately, UPS decided it did not want to employ Mr. Manske because he kept pointing out these safety problems with its trucks--even though federal law required him to point out the problems.

UPS argued that STAA and Maine's Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA) do not prohibit an employer from firing a truck driver for reporting these type of safety problems. In advancing this argument, UPS attempted to distort the facts. At one point in its opinion, the court went so far as to call UPS's denial of certain facts "inexplicable and frivolous." Ultimately, the court held that STAA prohibits trucking companies from retaliating against drivers who report the type of safety issues that Mr. Manske reported. The Court refrained from ruling on whether the MWPA prohibits this type of retaliation because it found that UPS had not adequately developed an argument on that issue.

The former employees, represented by the Maine Employee Rights Group, have asserted claims against the Defendants under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), and the federal Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act). The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on the basis of their constitutional right to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. They argued that the constitution prohibited individuals from bringing claims against arms of the state, like them, unless they had waived their immunity to those claims. They also argued that the Court should not permit the former employees to amend their complaint to correct the Eleventh Amendment issues in it. The former employees conceded that the Eleventh Amendment barred their MHRA claims but argued that their amended complaint contained claims that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar. So, the Court had to decide whether to allow the former employees to amend their complaint and then whether the ADEA and Rehab Act claims, as asserted in the amended complaint, could go forward.

The Court permitted the former employees to amend their complaint. It held that the Rehab Act claim, brought by one of the former employees, could go forward finding that the Defendants had waived their sovereign immunity to Rehab Act claims. With respect to the ADEA claims, which all six of the former employees had brought, the Court held that the former employees could pursue claims against the Chancellor for "prospective injunctive relief." This means that, if the former employees prove that they suffered age discrimination, the Court can order the Chancellor to take actions to prevent the age discrimination against them from continuing.

Caritas successfully persuaded the trial judge to dismiss the lawsuit because it argued that the complaint the plaintiffs filed was not detailed enough. The First Circuit rejected this argument recognizing that in this case, like most employment cases, the employer likely possessed information that the plaintiffs will need to prove their case. The court also recognized that it is sometimes difficult for plaintiffs to predict what facts a judge will find essential to a valid complaint. So, the court advised the trial judge, when the case comes back before him, to provide the plaintiffs an explanation of what information must be added to the complaint.

This case is an example of a growing trend. Employers have increasingly tried to get cases against them thrown out on technicalities rather than fighting them on the merits. If you have an employment case, you should seek representation from an experienced employment lawyer who is familiar with these tactics and has experience fighting them.

The main elements of the program overhaul include:

• Altered eligibility requirements and the creation of a 10-year cap on benefits for employees who are permanently impaired with partial incapacity.

• The elimination of a requirement that employers must continue paying benefits during an appeal of a decision favorable to the employee.

• A new appeals divisions with authority to create rules of procedure.

• A shortened time period in which a notice of injury must be given, from 90 days to 30 days.

• A changed maximum benefit, from 80 percent of an employee's net weekly wages to 66 percent of gross weekly wages.

The overhaul is prospective, i.e. all workers currently in the system are exempt from the changes.

Senate Democrats harshly criticize the changes as eliminating benefits for the most severely injured workers and creating a windfall for employers and insurance companies. The current law has a safety net that provides benefits for the duration of disability for severely injured employees who experience permanent loss of earnings. The new law eliminates that safety net and caps benefits for almost all injured workers at 10 years even if their injury results in permanent earnings loss or prevents them from returning to work.

The new law does soften the landing for permanently impaired workers who would lose benefits after 10 years and also requires consideration of psychological work capacity in assessing an employee's earning potential.

If you have been injured at work, call Maine Employee Rights Group at 1-800-596-0662 for a free telephone consultation today.

Maine and other states have had laws that prohibit this type of discrimination on the books for years but there are still some parts of the country that do not. Indeed, a majority of states do not have laws that prohibit employment discrimination against GLBT employees. This is one reason why opponents of employment discrimination have supported a bill in Congress, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would illegalize discrimination against GLBT employees.

The court refused to enforce the arbitration provision in the employee handbook. In order for an arbitration agreement in an employee handbook to be enforceable, it has to contain obligations for both the employee and the employer. In this case, since the University of Phoenix could change the terms of its employee handbook any time it wanted, it could avoid any obligations that the handbook required of it. When an employer reserves the right to change its employee handbook any time it wants and also does not even give employees a chance to decide whether they want to continue to work for it after it makes a change, the arbitration provision in the handbook is unenforceable.

The University of Phoenix is one of many employers who have decided to force employees to give up their Constitutional right to bring a case against it in court if it violates their rights. Employers prefer arbitration for many reasons such as the fact that they are private, outside of public view; employees have less opportunity to gather evidence against the employer in arbitration; and employers prefer to defend claims before arbitrators who they pay and who may depend on the employers for repeat business.

This statute is similar to a federal statute that has come under fire from disability rights advocates, members of Congress, and legal scholars because it is blatantly discriminatory against individuals with disabilities. Under the Maine Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers may not discriminate against employees with disabilities. It certainly constitutes discrimination to pay disabled employees less because they are disabled. However, that is exactly the conduct that these subminimum wage laws sanction.

If you think these subminimum wage laws should be abolished, you should contact your state and federal representatives.

It is clearly illegal not to pay employees wages since there are federal and state minimum wage laws. There is an exception to the minimum wage requirements for interns but that exception is narrow. In order for an employer to avoid an obligation to pay interns, several criteria must be met. Those criteria, under federal law, are as follows:

In Wisconsin, the State Assembly decided to eliminate the right of victims of employment discrimination to seek compensation under state law for non-economic damages, like the stress one experiences due to financial hardship when his employer fires him for a discriminatory reason. The Wisconsin State Assembly also eliminated the ability of juries to assess punitive damages against employers who discriminate against their employees. The only monetary remedy the Wisconsin State Assembly left intact was compensation for lost wages, benefits, and attorney fees. Under this new law, employers could engage in some types of discrimination without facing any monetary loss at all. For instance, under this new law, employers will not have to pay monetary damages if they subject employees to sexual harassment.

In Missouri, the State Senate voted to make the burden of proof more difficult on victims of employment discrimination. Employment discrimination lawsuit are already incredibly difficult for employees to win. According to a study of cases in federal court, from 1979 through 2006, plaintiffs won 15% of job-discrimination cases. By comparison, in all other civil cases, the win rate was 51%. This new law in Missouri will only make it more difficult for victims of employment discrimination to hold their employers accountable.

CDOL has collected $250,000 in civil penalties as a result of the Stop Work orders it issued between January 26 and February 23, 2012.

If you believe that your employer has misclassified you as an independent contractor, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn about your rights. By misclassifying you as an independent contractor, your employer may be depriving you of wages by not paying you overtime; or it may be putting your livelihood at risk by not providing you with workers compensation insurance coverage.

The Court noted that this is a "disparate impact" case, which means that the black stockbrokers do not have to prove that Merrill Lynch intentionally discriminated against them because of their race. Instead, they only have to prove that the policies and procedures they've challenged adversely affect them at a statistically significant rate. If they meet this burden of proof, they will prevail unless Merrill Lynch can prove that the challenged policies and procedures are justified by business necessity. The Court believed that these issues could be resolved in one case, by one court, on a class-wide basis.

The Court's decision permits the black stockbrokers' case to go forward as a class action. Thus, if Merrill Lynch does not now settle the case with the black stockbrokers, the trial court will determine if the challenged policies and procedures adversely affected the black stockbrokers at a statistically significant rate and, if so, whether they are justified by business necessity.

In this case, Herman Chiropractic knew that the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which entitles eligible employees to medical leave for pregnancy related health issues, did not cover it. The FMLA didn't cover Herman Chiropractic because it did not have 50 or more employees. Thus, that law did not require it to provide Dr. Beamer with leave for her pregnancy related condition. However, the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) also protects pregnant employees. Under the PDA, an employer cannot fire an employee because she is pregnant. Dr. Beamer claims in her lawsuit that Herman Chiropractic did exactly that.

If you are pregnant and your employer has refused to let you take leave from work due to pregnancy related health issues because it claims you aren't covered by the FMLA, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights. It is not uncommon for an employer to mistakenly tell an employee she is ineligible for FMLA leave even when she is eligible. Additionally, Maine has its own version of the FMLA, which applies to employers with fewer than 50 employees, and some employers misapply that law as well. Even if the federal FMLA or Maine's version of the FMLA don't cover you, you might have a claim under the PDA like Dr. Beamer.

The Court held that a reasonable jury could find that Aggregate violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) when it terminated the whistleblower's employment. Prior to the whistleblower's termination, he and others had filed a "qui tam" lawsuit which alleged that Aggregate supplied substandard concrete to the Big Dig. A qui tam lawsuit is a lawsuit where a private individual can sue a company that has defrauded the federal government. If the individual prevails, the federal government recoups most of the defrauded money but some of the money goes to the individual who brought the lawsuit as an incentive for whistleblowers to come forward.

Aggregate settled the qui tam lawsuit for several million dollars and then 72 hours later it fired the whistleblower. The Court found this timing suspicious and held that it constituted evidence that Aggregate retaliated against the whistleblower in violation of the FCA. Aggregate claimed that it fired the whistleblower because he refused to submit to a repeat drug test after an initial drug test allegedly came back inconclusive. The Court held that a reasonable jury could disbelieve this explanation for several reasons. For instance, Aggregate violated its own policies. When the whistleblower provided a urine sample to Aggregate, it split the sample into two specimens. The first specimen resulted in an inconclusive test. When the test allegedly came back inconclusive, Aggregate refused to test the second specimen, contrary to its own policy, and demanded that the whistleblower submit another urine sample. Aggregate claimed that it lost the second specimen but no witnesses actually verified that it was, in fact, lost. In fact, a witness for Aggregate said that standard testing procedures made it "highly unlikely" that a specimen could be lost.

If your employer is engaging in illegal activity and you are considering blowing the whistle, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn about your rights. Employers who decide to retaliate against a whistleblower usually create a pretext, or an untrue excuse, to mask its retaliatory motive. An experienced employment lawyer can help you protect yourself if you blow the whistle and your employer tries to create a pretext to fire you.