Maine Employment Lawyer Blog

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.

Maine Human Rights Commission et al. v. Coffee Couple LLC et al.

U.S. District for the District Court of Maine Chief Judge John A. Woodcock recently affirmed Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk's decision recommending that judgment be entered against the company, Coffee Couple LLC, as well as against the owners of Coffee Couple, Karen and Calvin Boyle of Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada in connection with their discrimination against a number of Maine employees.

The Maine Human Rights Commission ("MHRC") Maine Employee Rights Group ("MERG"), and Disability Rights Center ("DRC"), brought suit against Coffee Couple and the Boyles for acts of racial discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, gender discrimination and disability discrimination. Five plaintiffs were represented in this action; Chad T. Hansen of MERG represented two of the Plaintiffs, Jessica Page and Brittany Corliss, on their claims of gender and pregnancy discrimination. The MHRC and the DRC represented the remaining three plaintiffs on their claims of race and disability discrimination.

The plaintiffs each worked at a Tim Horton's franchise for the Boyles and Coffee Couple, where they experienced multiple acts of discrimination at the hands of the Boyles.

Ms. Page, worked at the front counter of Tim Horton's for four months but was terminated by the defendants after she disclosed that she was pregnant. Similarly, Ms. Corliss, worked for the defendants for almost a year until she also disclosed her pregnancy and was terminated.

Terminating an employee because they are pregnant constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under the state Maine Human Rights Act ("MHRA") and also violates federal anti-discrimination law, Title VII.

After hearing testimony and arguments from the plaintiffs, Judge Kravchuk recommended that the Court enter default judgment finding Coffee Couple liable for unlawful employment discrimination with respect to the plaintiffs that were present at the hearing and also finding the Boyles individually liable for a number of discriminatory acts. On June 29, 2011, Judge Woodcock affirmed that decision, finding that the plaintiffs that had appeared at the hearing were discriminated against and that Ms. Page and Ms. Corliss were unlawfully discriminated against in violation of state and federal law on the basis of their pregnancy. In cases of intentional discrimination the court may award compensatory damages in addition to back pay, including damages for the loss of enjoyment of life and emotional pain and suffering. As a result, Ms. Page was awarded $11,440.00 in back pay, $1000.00 in compensatory damages, plus fees and costs as well as a $2,500.00 civil penalty against Coffee Couple and Ms. Corliss was awarded $1,333.00 in back pay, $10,000.00 in compensatory damages, plus fees and costs as well as a $1,000.00 civil penalty against both Calvin and Karen Boyle individually.

On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ended a class action gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of over 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees. The representatives of the women of Wal-Mart alleged that Wal-Mart discriminated against women when it made pay and promotion decisions.

The lawyers representing the women of Wal-Mart put forward statistical evidence that proved Wal-Mart treated women less favorably than men. They also put forward evidence of a sexist corporate culture to support their statistics. For instance, Wal-Mart's most senior human resources official saw nothing wrong with district managers holding their management meetings at Hooters restaurants. Furthermore, during management training at Wal-Mart corporate headquarters, Wal-Mart told managers that the reason so few women have reached senior management at Wal-Mart was because men were "more aggressive" than women--an obviously stereotypical view of women in the workplace. Despite this and other evidence, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the lawyers representing the women of Wal-Mart failed to present sufficient evidence to prove class-wide discrimination.

Due to the Supreme Court's ruling, the women of Wal-Mart will have to bring their own individual gender discrimination lawsuits against Wal-Mart. If you are a woman who worked for Wal-Mart and you believe (a) that you received less pay because of your gender or (b) that you did not receive a promotion to a management position because of your gender, you should immediately contact an experienced Maine employment lawyer in order to protect your rights. Even if these things happened to you years ago, you can still pursue a claim against Wal-Mart.

A federal judge in Washington has approved a settlement that will require Wells Fargo to pay $32 million and reform its employment policies because of a sex discrimination class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of about 3,000 female financial advisors. The lawsuit alleged that Wells Fargo, and its predecessor Wachovia, discriminated against female financial advisors by denying them business opportunities such as distribution of accounts and work assignments.

This lawsuit is a symptom of the larger problem of unequal pay in this country. In the United States, women still earn significantly less than men. In Maine, on average, women earn over $9500 less per year than men.

If you believe that your employer pays you less than men who do the same job you do, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer for advice.

On December 6, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review a case from California called Dukes v. Wal-Mart. Dukes is a class action in which the plaintiffs claim that Wal-Mart engaged in a widespread practice of sex discrimination. They claim that Wal-Mart discriminated against women with respect to job assignments, pay decisions and training; and retaliates against women who complain about such practices.

The Supreme Court, however, will not decide whether Wal-Mart discriminated against its female employees. Instead, it will decide whether the plaintiffs can bring their case, on behalf of about 500,000 women who worked for Wal-Mart, in the form of a class action. Class actions make it easier for large groups of people to receive compensation when employers violate their rights. For that reason, employers routinely seek to prevent class actions. They try to force employees to bring their cases individually.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in California, decided that the class action could go forward. However, five of the eleven judges on that court believed that the class action should not go forward. Some people who regularly follow the Supreme Court believe that the Supreme Court, due to its bias against class action cases, will reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision.

If you are a Mainer who works for Wal-Mart, and you believe Wal-Mart has discriminated against you, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to discuss 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 October 20, 2010 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a public meeting to hear testimony about the way employers use credit history checks to screen job applicants. Some believe that credit checks have a disparate impact on minorities, women and the disabled. Opponents of the use of credit checks also pointed out at the meeting that credit checks create a "Catch-22" for the unemployed. "You can't re-establish your credit if you can't get a job, and you can't get a job if you've got bad credit," said Chi Chi Wu of the National Consumer Law Center. Witnesses who testified on behalf of employers emphasized that credit checks are just one "piece of the puzzle" that employers look at when they make hiring decisions.