This week a Federal judge in Maine denied, in large part, Hannaford’s motion to throw out a lawsuit filed by the Maine Employee Rights Group (MERG). MERG argued that Hannaford violated disability discrimination and medical leave laws when it refused to modify our client’s schedule. As a result, the case is slated to go to trial later this year.
MERG’s client works as an Assistant Manager in the Meat Department of the Waterville, Maine Hannaford store. He suffers from Lyme disease and, due to this disability, he asked Hannaford for a modified schedule as a reasonable accommodation which would allow him to start and finish work earlier in the day. He needed this early schedule because his Lyme disease symptoms (which include fatigue, dizziness, and pain) escalate in the late afternoon. Our client had been working this early schedule for a long time, without any problems, and then Hannaford changed his schedule to make it consistent with the schedules of Assistant Meat Department Managers in other stores. Even though our client got a note from his doctor supporting his request for the early schedule, Hannaford denied the request. The judge held that a reasonable fact-finder could determine that Hannaford’s denial of our client’s request violated his right to reasonable accommodations and was discriminatory under state and federal disability discrimination laws.
After Hannaford denied our client’s request to go back to his old schedule, he asked for a reduced leave schedule under the FMLA. Under the FMLA (state and federal), eligible employees are entitled to a reduction in their hours if they need such a reduction due to a serious health condition. Our client still thought he was entitled to start and finish work earlier, as a reasonable accommodation for his disability; but because Hannaford denied that request, he and his doctor asked Hannaford to reduce his schedule so that he would consistently finish work in the mid-afternoon. Hannaford denied this request as well. To add insult to injury, Hannaford also retaliated against our client for requesting a modified schedule by refusing to let him punch-in early. The judge held that a reasonable fact-finder could determine that Hannaford violated our client’s rights under the FMLA and unlawfully retaliated against him when it refused to let him punch-in early.
Of course, Hannaford disputes many of these facts and denies that it violated our client’s rights. The judge determined that a trial would be necessary to sort out the facts and make a final determination on whether Hannaford broke the law.