• Thank you for all your help on [AW's] case. Without you, nothing would have come from it. We will be sending people your way. We hope that we will not need your help again, but if we do you will be hearing from us.”

    - J.W., East Machias.

  • We appreciate everything you have done for us. You made this whole process much easier on [P.C.] and me. Words cannot express our gratitude.”

    - K.C., Sanford.

  • Thank you for your efforts and hard work in resolving my case. Your leadership and initiatives were outstanding. I felt truly represented, respected and was treated with honesty and integrity. We are grateful for a positive result and grateful for the excellent teamwork!”

    - L.D., Portland.

  • I want to thank you and your staff for all you and they did. The professional and compassionate way my case was handled is greatly appreciated. It was a pleasure to do business with your firm and if the need ever arises I will be back in touch. Thank you again.”

    - M.H., Bangor.
Published on:

By

A group of six former employees of Hertz have reportedly sued the company for religious discrimination.  The employees worked for Hertz at the Minneapolis – St. Paul airport.  They claim that managers demeaned their religion, placed arbitrary restrictions on their ability to pray at work, and ultimately fired them allegedly because of their religion.

Hertz managers allegedly made disparaging remarks about Islam and the former employees.  They reportedly made comments such as “if you pray continuously, you will make us lose money and no Muslims will be hired.”  Another manager allegedly said “your religion is lying.  The Qur’an is lying.  You’re a liar,” and “your religion is stupid.”

Managers also allegedly entered the room designated for the Muslim employees to pray in and checked employees’ badges.  According to Nadif Ketibe, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the prayer room was supposed to be “only for praying people.”  “In my religion,” he said, “when I am praying, I am not supposed to be distracted by anything.”  Mr. Ketibe also said that managers would wear their shoes in the prayer room while the employees were praying, which also contravenes Muslim practice.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The paper mill in Bucksport, currently owned by Verso Paper, will be shutting down and hundreds of workers will be laid off.  When a closure of a workplace this size occurs in Maine, state law requires the employer to provide severance pay to laid off employees who have worked three years or more for the employer.  Each employee’s severance pay must be equal to one week of wages for every year the employee worked for the employer.  The law requires the employer to pay this severance pay “within one regular pay period after the employee’s last full day of work.”

In addition to this severance pay law, Maine also has a law which requires an employer to pay an employee the wages he has earned and the vacation time he has accrued when he separates from the employer.  The employer must provide this money to the employee within a “reasonable time” after the employee “demands” the money.  For purposes of the law, “a reasonable time means the earlier of either the next day on which employees would regularly be paid or a day not more than 2 weeks after the day on which the demand is made.”

A union who represents workers at the Bucksport mill and some of the affected workers sued Verso because they claimed Verso refused to pay severance pay and accrued vacation pay within the required time periods.  The Maine Department of Labor, Maine Attorney General, and another union have reportedly reached a settlement agreement with Verso over the payment of severance pay.  But the union who filed the lawsuit, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, has reportedly not agreed to the settlement.  The settlement would reportedly allow Verso to pay half of the severance pay by January 8 and the rest in March. (This news report does not mention the payment of accrued vacation pay.)

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In 2015, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the minimum wage in 24 states will increase. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour.  In 2015, 29 states will require employers to pay more than the federal minimum wage.  Maine is one of these 29 states with a minimum wage of $7.50 per hour.

In 2014, four states approved increases to their minimum wages through ballot measures and legislatures in eleven states, as well as the District of Columbia, also approved minimum wage increases.  Another nine states have minimum wage laws that call for automatic increases to the minimum wage in 2015 based on measures of inflation.

Four of the 24 states that will see increases to their minimum wages in 2015 are Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  Their minimum wages will be: $9.15 per hour in Connecticut; $9.00 per hour in Massachusetts; $9.00 per hour in Rhode Island; and $9.15 per hour in Vermont.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Last month in California, a federal jury found that AutoZone discriminated against Rosario Juarez, a former employee, because she was pregnant.  The jury awarded Juarez $872,000 for the damages she suffered plus $185 million in punitive damages.

Juarez claimed that AutoZone demoted her from her management position in 2006 after she informed the company that she was pregnant.  Juarez told her district manager that she was pregnant and, according to her, he said “congratulations…I guess” and then said “I feel sorry for you.”  AutoZone claimed that it demoted her because she misplaced $400 in cash.  But the loss prevention officer who investigated the missing money said that he did not think Juarez was to blame for the missing money.

Pregnancy discrimination is unlawful under Maine and federal law.  In Maine, if a jury returned a verdict of $185 million in punitive damages, damage caps in the Maine Human Rights Act would require the court to reduce the award to, at most, $500,000.  While this may seem like a lot of money, to a company like AutoZone–which reportedly pulled in $9.5 billion in revenue between August 2013 and August 2014–$500,000 does not have much of an effect.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently released the results of a new study that it commissioned on minimum wage law violations in New York and California. The DOL commissioned this study because it enforces the minimum wage requirements that are in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The group that conducted the study sought to measure three things: (1) the extent of minimum wage violations in New York and California; (2) the amount of lost income stemming from those minimum wage violations; and (3) the economic impact of those violations.

The study showed that employers violate minimum wage requirements far too frequently.  In California, the study estimated that between 344,000 and 372,000 minimum wage violations occur weekly.  This translates to between $22.5 and $28.7 million in wages that California employers wrongly withheld (or, in other words, stole) from their employees every week.  In New York, the wage theft from minimum wage violations was in the $10 to $20 million range every week.  Employers in the leisure and hospitality industry are the worst offenders in both states.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Every year around this time many employers organize holiday parties for their employees and, as many employment lawyers will tell you (see here and here), it is not uncommon for sexual harassment to occur at them.  This seems to be particularly true when employers serve alcohol at the parties.  Some people tend to lose their inhibitions and use poor judgment when they drink, which can lead them to engage in sexually harassing behavior.

Given how common it is for sexual harassment to occur at these holiday parties, it is a good idea for every worker to refresh their memories this time of year about what sexual harassment is and what to do if it occurs.  Your employer likely has a sexual harassment policy which will contain useful information and you can also find information about sexual harassment at the EEOC’s website.

You should certainly understand that just because you’re not working while you’re at your employer’s holiday party does not mean that your employer has no obligation to protect you from sexual harassment at the party.  If your boss, for example, gets drunk and sexually harasses you at the party, his harassment is unlawful.  Even if you’re not the one who gets sexually harassed, you may witness sexual harassment of a co-worker at the party, too.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island sued Darlington Fabrics, a textile company, because it refused to hire a woman when she disclosed that she used marijuana for medicinal purposes, which is legal in Rhode Island.  The woman, Christine Callaghan, uses marijuana to treat debilitating migraine headaches.  Callaghan claims that she assured representatives of Darlington Fabrics that she would not bring marijuana to work and would not come to work under the influence of marijuana.  Nevertheless, the ACLU’s lawsuit alleges that the company refused to hire her because of her marijuana use even though her marijuana use was legal under state law.

We reported on a similar case that was filed in Maine in 2013.  In that case, the ACLU of Maine sued Adecco when it refused to hire a woman who used marijuana for medicinal purposes.  In connection with that case, the legal director of the ACLU of Maine, Zachary Heiden, said “no patient should be forced to choose between the pain relief she needs to live a normal life and the employment she needs to support her family.  And no employer should be forcing itself into the middle of a decision best made by a patient and her doctor.”

In addition to relying on Rhode Island’s medicinal marijuana law, the ACLU of Rhode Island is arguing that Callaghan’s migraine condition is a disability and Darlington Fabrics’ refusal to hire her because of the medication that she takes for that disability constitutes disability discrimination.  Regarding the lawsuit, Callaghan said “I just want Darlington and other companies in Rhode Island to treat me and other licensed patients the same way they would treat any other employee with a chronic health condition who is taking medication, as the law requires.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Yesterday, a federal court in Massachusetts held that the retaliation case of a former Brockton, Massachusetts police officer may go to trial.  The former officer, Ken Williams, alleges that the City of Brockton and officials from the Brockton police department violated his First Amendment rights when they retaliated against him for speaking out on a matter of public concern.  The matter of public concern that Williams spoke out about was alleged racial discrimination against a person who another Brockton police officer arrested.

In November 2007, Brockton police officers arrested an African American businessman named Jose Semedo.  During the arrest, one of the police officers, Lon Elliott, allegedly uttered racial epithets toward Semedo and mocked him using racially offensive gestures.  Semedo later spoke to Williams about what happened and Williams advised Semedo to file a complaint against Elliott with the Brockton Police Department. Semedo filed a complaint, as Williams advised, and an internal affairs investigation against Elliott ensued.  After the conclusion of the investigation, Williams also testified at a disciplinary hearing against Elliott which ultimately resulted in Elliott’s termination.

Williams claims that he experienced retaliation because he advised Semedo to file his racial discrimination complaint and because Williams testified against Elliott at his disciplinary hearing.  The retaliatory acts include the defendants’ denial of his request for work-related medical leave which forced him to retire.  The federal court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on these claims and held that they should go to trial.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Last month, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a reasonable jury could determine that the defendant-employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when it fired the plaintiff-employee after she returned from medical leave related to a knee replacement surgery.  The FMLA, among other things, requires employers to permit eligible employees to take medical leave, sometimes called “FMLA leave,” when they need it for serious health conditions; and the law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who take FMLA leave.

The plaintiff-employee in this case, Jeanne Lee Wallner, claimed that the defendant-employer, a financial brokerage firm called Hilliard Lyons Asset Management, fired her because she had taken FMLA leave.  Hilliard Lyons fired Wallner, a 27 year employee of the firm, a mere nine days after she returned from FMLA leave.

The Sixth Circuit was called upon to rule in this case because a trial judge denied Wallner the opportunity to present her case to a jury.  The trial judge thought that no reasonable jury could find in Wallner’s favor and, for that reason, dismissed her case.  The Sixth Circuit disagreed with the trial judge.  The Sixth Circuit concluded that Wallner presented circumstantial evidence that her FMLA leave served as one of multiple reasons for her termination and, as such, a reasonable jury could find in her favor.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This week, protesters in the Chicago-area community of Forest Park reportedly decried racial discrimination against African Americans in hiring at Ferrara Candy.  Ferrara Candy makes candies such as Red Hots and Lemonheads.  The company and two staffing agencies it uses have been accused of discriminating against African American laborers in favor of Latino laborers.

There is a pending class action lawsuit against Ferrara and these two staffing agencies.  A federal judge rebuffed the companies’ motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit this past July.  The plaintiffs in that class action have alleged that the vast majority of laborers sent to work at Ferrara from the two staffing agencies at issue were Latino.  The plaintiffs believe that Ferrara instructed the staffing companies to send them only Latino laborers to work in the Ferrara factory.  This would explain why, according to the plaintiffs, the staffing agencies recruit laborers primarily through Spanish-language media; and one of the staffing agencies conducts employee orientations in Spanish.  Some Latino witnesses have also stated that where they work at Ferrara all of the employees are Latino.

“Ferrara Candy makes millions of dollars, particularly in the Halloween season, on the folks in this community.  We want them to ensure the people who make their candy in this community are the folks that actually live in this community,” said Elce Redmond, organizer with the South Austin Coalition Community Council. About 32% of the population of Forest Park is African American.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
92 Exchange St
Portland, ME 04101
Phone: 207-874-0905Fax: 207-874-0343
23 Water St
#207
Bangor, ME 04401
Phone: 800-596-0662

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, Maine Employee Rights Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design