• 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

The Town of Dixfield and the Teamsters Union are engaged in a dispute over Dixfield’s treatment of long-time employee Darlene Brann, who served as an administrative assistant in Dixfield’s Public Works Department and the Shop Steward for the union. According to the Teamsters, Dixfield has spent over $29,000 in legal fees in an effort to eliminate Ms. Brann’s position. The Teamsters allege that Dixfield went so far as to negotiate with the Mexico Water District, behind the union’s back, to subcontract Ms. Brann’s duties to the Mexico Water District and on December 9 notified Ms. Brann that her employment with the Town of Dixfield would be terminated as of December 31.

The Dixfield Town Manager, Linda Pagels-Wentworth, has said that Maine law prohibits her from discussing the town’s pending negotiations with the Teamsters and, so, she refused to speak to the media about those ongoing negotiations. She did say, however, that removing Ms. Brann from her employment with the town “made fiscal sense” because it was “an opportunity for regionalization.

Published on:

By

A new study provides further evidence that employers discriminate against pregnant women when they apply for a job but the study also offers pregnant job seekers helpful tips for getting around the discriminatory biases of employers. The researchers who conducted the study found that pregnant job applicants experienced more hostility (such as rude behavior or prematurely ending of interviews) from employers than non-pregnant job applicants. However, the researchers also found that when pregnant job applicants said things during interviews that addressed some of the more stereotypical concerns about pregnant employees, such as their level of commitment to the job, they were able to reduce the frequency of employers’ discriminatory behavior.

“This study takes the research of discrimination against pregnant women a step further,” said lead author Whitney Botsford Morgan, assistant professor of management at the University of Houston. “We know that this type of discrimination exists. This research helps us understand what can be done to reduce it. Statements that refute stereotypes about being inflexible and lacking commitment are particularly effective.”

It is against state and federal law for employers to discriminate against an employee or job applicant because she is pregnant. Despite these laws, as this study shows, discrimination against pregnant women is common. If you believe an employer has discriminated against you because you are pregnant, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

Published on:

By

Earlier this week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision to award the plaintiff’s attorney in Diaz v. Jiten Hotel Management, Inc. over $100,000 in fees and costs after she won a jury verdict of only $7,650 for her client in an age discrimination case. The plaintiff’s attorney incurred this relatively high amount of fees and costs, in part, because the case was appealed to the First Circuit three times.

Jiten Hotel Management’s attorneys argued that the First Circuit should reduce the amount of fees and costs that the trial court awarded to the plaintiff’s attorney because they were so much higher than the jury verdict she obtained for her client. The First Circuit rejected Jiten Hotel Management’s argument because the statute that entitles prevailing plaintiffs’ attorneys to compensation for their fees and costs was designed to encourage attorneys to pursue civil rights cases even if the plaintiff suffered relatively little harm. These “fee shifting” statutes ensure that civil rights laws are enforced. If defendants who violated civil rights laws did not have to pay the fees and costs that plaintiffs’ attorneys incurred, many plaintiffs’ attorneys could not afford to pursue civil rights cases and the civil rights laws would not be enforced. Thus, it makes sense for the court to award Diaz’s attorney with such a large award of fees and costs because if it didn’t, she may have never taken Diaz’s case and Jiten Hotel Management could have gotten away with discriminating against Diaz because of her age.

Published on:

By

Yesterday, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals held that a reasonable jury could conclude that Flight Services & Systems, Inc. unlawfully retaliated against a former skycap, Joseph Travers, because he complained about Flight Services’ violation of wage & hour laws. Travers had served as a named representative of a class of skycaps who sued Flight Services for, among other things, failure to pay minimum wage. By all accounts, Travers was the lead named plaintiff in that class action.

In response to the class action, the CEO of Flight Services told Travers’ supervisor to “get rid of” Travers and “talk [Travers] into dropping the lawsuit.” Travers’ supervisor told Travers to be careful because “the company would be coming after him.” Flight Services subsequently did “get rid of” Travers when it fired him in September of 2010.

Despite this directive from the CEO to “get rid of” Travers because of the class action lawsuit Travers spearheaded, the trial court in this case found that no jury could reasonably find that Flight Services fired Travers in retaliation for his opposition to the company’s violations of wage & hour laws. The trial court held that a reasonable juror would have to accept the company’s explanation that it fired Travers because it received a complaint that he solicited a tip from a customer, in violation of company policy. The First Circuit held that the trial court was wrong for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the CEO, even though he was not directly involved in the decision to fire Travers, let his subordinates know that he wanted Travers fired because of the class action lawsuit.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Back in 2011, in this post and this post, we discussed the plans of some Maine Republican lawmakers to loosen restrictions on child labor. Those plans did not come to fruition but, according to recent news reports, the LePage administration wants to try again but this time with some measures that are less drastic. Currently under Maine law, kids younger than 16 may not work unless they obtain a permit from their school superintendent. A bill in the Maine legislature would, among other things, permit the Maine Department of Labor to issue those permits, instead of a school superintendent, during summer break.

Governor LePage has made clear that this bill is, in his view, just a good place to start in rolling back child labor laws. For instance, under current law, children under the age of 14 may not work in most instances. Governor LePage wants to change that legal limit to the age of 12.

Child labor laws were originally enacted in the 19th and 20th centuries because children were being exploited by employers. Similar concerns about exploitation should exist today. Children, who are less educated and have less life experience than adults, are less likely than adults to know that an employer is violating their rights. They are also less likely to push back when an adult exploits them or treats them unlawfully because many are taught to never question adults with authority over them. For these reasons, lawmakers should exercise caution when they consider undoing decades-old child labor laws.

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a jury in California reportedly found that Orange County Sheriff’s Department violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA) when it discriminated against a deputy sheriff because of his service as a Marine in the Iraq war. The veteran, Scott Montoya, won the Navy Cross for his actions during the 2003 Battle of Baghdad.

According to news accounts of the case, Montoya’s attorneys presented evidence that, among other things, Montoya’s co-workers and superiors in the Orange County Sheriff’s Department repeatedly mocked his combat heroics, spread false rumors about him, sabotaged his locker, encouraged citizens to file complaints against him, suggested that they would not back him up on dangerous patrol calls, and subjected him to surveillance while he was off duty. Montoya developed post-traumatic stress disorder–not from his time serving as a Marine but–from this campaign of harassment that he experienced at the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.

Despite the jury’s verdict, the attorney for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department is reportedly arguing that Montoya is entitled to no monetary compensation for the hostile work environment he endured. This is because USERRA, unlike some employment discrimination statutes, does not allow plaintiffs to recover money for non-economic harms, such as anxiety, humiliation, and psychological trauma. Instead, to recover monetary compensation, a plaintiff must have lost pay as a result of the discrimination. Montoya’s attorneys have argued that Montoya did lose pay as a result of the discrimination because the Orange County Sheriff’s Department fired him. However, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department claims it fired Montoya for valid reasons.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Many sports fans have been following the situation in Miami involving the claims of former Dolphins lineman Jonathan Martin. Martin, who is African American, claims that his teammates, including fellow lineman Richie Incognito, racially harassed him. Martin left the team because of the harassment. Could the Dolphins be legally liable for Incognito’s harassment? The answer is, it depends.

The harassment would have had to have been severe or frequent enough to create a hostile work environment. Given reports of repeated use of racial slurs, Martin would likely be able to prove that a hostile work environment existed. An important factor in the case, however, is that it involved co-worker harassment. Incognito and other players were not Martin’s supervisors and that makes a big difference in harassment cases.

Because this case would involve co-worker harassment, for the Dolphins to be held liable for racial harassment, Martin would have to prove that Dolphins team management, such as the coaching staff, knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take reasonable steps to correct the problem. If Martin didn’t complain to management about the harassment before he left the team, it could be difficult for him to prove that management knew or should have known that he found any of the harassment offensive. Based on reports from several Dolphins players, it was quite common for players to give each other a hard time and make fun of each other. In that environment, team management may convincingly claim that they didn’t know that Martin found the harassment as offensive as he obviously did. Of course, even in that type of environment, there are lines that should not be crossed–such as calling someone a racial slur. If Dolphins team management knew about the racial slurs and did nothing, the team could be in legal trouble. Martin shouldn’t have to tell anyone that he found the use of racial slurs offensive for team management to discipline those who uttered the slurs.

Published on:

By

In Winslow v. Aroostook County and Northern Maine Development Commission, Inc. (NMDC), the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s whistleblower case because it found that she was not a “whistleblower” under the terms of Maine’s Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). The First Circuit found that the plaintiff, while working for Aroostook County, had told County officials that the County was engaged in illegal activity. The plaintiff argued that NMDC refused to hire her when it took over the program that she directed because she had reported Aroostook County’s illegal activity. The First Circuit held that, even if that was the reason why NMDC refused to hire her, its decision would not have violated the MWPA. This is because, even though she reported illegal activity, the First Circuit found that she did so as part of her job responsibilities.

This case shows that how an employee blows the whistle on his employer’s illegal activity is sometimes very important. The MWPA prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee who reports unlawful activity to it or to a public body. If you’re an employee whose job responsibilities include telling your employer when it has violated the law, and you are concerned that you’re going to be fired for reporting a violation of the law, you may consider reporting that illegal activity to a public body, like a government agency. To ensure that you’ll be protected under the MWPA, however, you must give your employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the illegal activity before you report it to a public body unless you have specific reason to believe that your employer won’t correct the illegal activity. These can be difficult decisions. So, to determine what course you should take, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer for advice.

Published on:

By

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on a vote of 64-32. The bill would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees and applicants because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. While the Maine Human Rights Act already prohibits discrimination against GLBT individuals, such discrimination is legal under federal law and in 29 states. Both of Maine’s senators voted in favor of ENDA.

“All Americans deserve a fair opportunity to pursue the American dream. Over the years, we have rightly taken a stand against workplace discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, religion, age, and disability. It is past time we ensure that all employees are judged on their talents, abilities, their hard work, and capabilities by closing an important gap in federal law as it relates to sexual orientation,” said U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). “I am pleased to be a long-time supporter and original cosponsor of ENDA. This bill deserves support as a matter of fairness and as a matter of civil rights. It is a commonsense solution, consistent with existing federal civil rights laws, and it will not place an undue burden on American employers. Moreover, it is simply the right thing to do.”

“The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is the next step in this country’s long movement toward ensuring basic civil rights protections for all of its citizens,” said U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME). “For far too long, LGBT individuals across the country have experienced harassment or lost their jobs simply because of who they are. ENDA will bring an end to these discriminatory practices by extending basic employment protections to millions of American employees, ensuring that individuals will be judged on the basis of their talent, skills, and experience, rather than sexual orientation or gender identity. Today’s vote marks a step forward for human rights and a step forward for America.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Earlier this month, the Labor and Workforce Development Committee of the Massachusetts House voted in favor of a bill that would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of height and weight. The bill would add height and weight to the list of characteristics that employers already may not use to discriminate against employees, such as race, sex, and religion.

A doctor who testified in support of the bill said that he had treated countless patients who suffered from discrimination because of their weight. He testified that he thinks discrimination against overweight people has become socially acceptable because of the common misconception that obesity is a character flaw.

Maine and federal law do not ban discrimination on the basis of height and weight. However, if your employer has discriminated against you because you are morbidly obese, you may be able to pursue a claim for disability discrimination. Some courts have found that morbid obesity is a disability. Height and weight requirements can also be used to discriminate against women and people with disabilities which affect their height, such as people with dwarfism. If an employer requires employees to be tall, that requirement could be illegal because of its disparate impact on women (who are, on average, shorter than men) and people with disabilities like dwarfism.

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