• 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

Glenn Mack, Jr., a muslim man who formerly worked at a Whole Foods grocery store in Philadelphia, is suing the company for religious discrimination. Mr. Mack’s troubles with Whole Foods began when he notified management of his intention to take 18 days off from work so that he could go on a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Mack was told that he was not guaranteed his job back when he returned from his pilgrimage. His supervisor told him “you can choose, it’s either your job or your religion.”

Mr. Mack chose his religion and went on his pilgrimage. Pilgrimages of this kind, called Hajj, are a requirement for all muslim people who are capable of traveling to Mecca.

When Mr. Mack returned from Hajj, Whole Foods demoted him from full-time to part-time status. Co-workers also began to interfere with his prayer time. Prior to his pilgrimage, he had always gone to pray in a secluded area away from customers during the periods of the day when his religion dictated that he pray. Due to interference from co-workers, he resorted to praying outside next to a dumpster.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Today, the Maine Human Rights Commission found that Discovery House, a company that operates 14 for-profit methadone clinics around the country, unlawfully retaliated against former employees John Dana and Colleen Taylor for their opposition to sexual harassment in the workplace.

Mr. Dana and Ms. Taylor both worked at Discovery House’s South Portland location as substance abuse counselors. During their employment at Discovery House, Mr. Dana and Ms. Taylor opposed sexual harassment perpetrated by a security guard and also by a supervisor. They complained about it and counseled fellow co-workers about their rights. They also complained that Discovery House took inadequate actions to address this sexual harassment and the hostile work environment it created. On July 15, 2009 they both met with the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Discovery House. Ms. Taylor told him that she had contacted the Maine Human Rights Commission about the sexual harassment in the workplace. Mr. Dana also told him of his concerns about the sexual harassment. The company fired both Mr. Dana and Ms. Taylor the very next day.

Mr. Dana worked for Discovery House a little over two years and Ms. Taylor worked there a little under two years. They had positive performance reviews and had received no other discipline. Yet, Discovery House claimed that it fired both Mr. Dana and Ms. Taylor because they were “not a good fit.” It also claimed that it fired them because they displayed “constant negativity” and disrupted their business operations. The Maine Human Rights Commission found that these explanations were likely just a pretext for discrimination.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

An investigator with the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has found that On the Edge Chipping in Phillips, Maine unlawfully fired Daniel Harnden, a skidder operator, because Mr. Harnden complained about charges the company put on his personal John Deere account. Mr. Harnden complained to On the Edge about the charges on December 4, 2009 and called John Deere on January 15, 2010 to tell it that On the Edge made charges to his account. Days later, On the Edge fired Mr. Harnden allegedly for performance issues.

The MHRC investigator found that most of the alleged performance issues On the Edge claimed it fired Mr. Harnden for stemmed from incidents that occurred long before Mr. Harnden complained about On the Edge making charges to his John Deere account. If On the Edge was really going to fire Mr. Harnden for those incidents, it would have done so long before Mr. Harnden made his complaints about the John Deere charges.

The MHRC will vote whether to adopt or reject the investigator’s recommendation at its next meeting on October 31, 2011. If the MHRC agrees with the investigator, and finds reasonable grounds to believe that On the Edge violated Mr. Harnden’s rights, the MHRC will attempt to facilitate a settlement between Mr. Harnden and On the Edge. If there is no settlement, a lawsuit could ensue.

Published on:

By

The former CFO for Proskauer Rose, a large law firm in New York, has sued it for disability discrimination. The former CFO, Elly Rosenthal, claims that the law firm demoted her and then fired her because she had breast cancer that required her to take medical leave. Ms. Rosenthal, who had served as the firm’s CFO since 1992, took several weeks of medical leave in 2008 while she underwent two surgeries to treat her cancer. According to Ms. Rosenthal, some in the law firm were supportive of her but others were not. So, when she was fired she felt “blindsided.” “I don’t know how we went from ‘Elly, get well and there will always be a place for you’ to ‘By the way, be out of here in three days,'” said Ms. Rosenthal.

Interestingly, a large part of Proskauer Rose’s business involves defending employers from employment discrimination lawsuits. Now, it has to defend itself.

If her allegations are true, Ms. Rosenthal is certainly not the first person to need medical leave from work to fight a life threatening disease and then lose her job because of it. The Maine Employee Rights Group has represented employees who have faced similar circumstances. If your employer is discriminating against you because you need to take medical leave due to a serious illness or disability, you should contact the Maine Employee Rights Group to learn about your rights.

Published on:

By

The Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has found reasonable grounds to believe that Lank Machining discriminated against Ronald Vilandry because of his age. According to the report from the MHRC, Mr. Vilandry interviewed for a job with Lank Machining as a CNC Operator. Mr. Vilandry maintains that during his interview the owner of Lank Machining correctly surmised that Mr. Vilandry was in his 60’s; told Mr. Vilandry that he was also in his 60’s; and said that people their age should be thinking about retirement.

Instead of Mr. Vilandry, Lank Machining hired an applicant who was about 40 years old and less qualified than Mr. Vilandry. Mr. Vilandry had experience working with the equipment that Lank Machining used. The younger applicant that the company hired did not. Mr. Vilandry also had more experience, in general, than the younger applicant that the company hired. Lank Machining claimed that the younger applicant’s lack of experience was irrelevant because it hired him for a position different than the CNC Operator position that Mr. Vilandry sought. This claim is contrary to what Lank Machining told the temp agency that it used to find the younger applicant. Lank Machining told the temp agency that it hired the younger applicant as a CNC Operator.

Mr. Vilandry is represented by Chad Hansen of the Maine Employee Rights Group.

Published on:

By

A group of lawmakers in Ohio have introduced a bill, HB 335, that would ban discrimination against LGBT employees. The lawmakers who introduced the bill include a Republican. The Republican party currently controls both houses of the Ohio state legislature. The last time a similar bill was voted on in the Ohio legislature, it died in the Republican controlled state senate.

“Ohio can no longer afford to drive away the talented work force of tomorrow by not enacting this legislation,” said Rep. Ross McGregor, a Republican from Springfield, Ohio. “… By enacting HB 335, we are saying that Ohio is a place where everyone can live and work free of discrimination.”

According to the Human Rights Campaign, Maine, 19 other states, and the District of Columbia outlaw discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation. Maine, 14 other states, and the District of Columbia outlaw discrimination against employees based on their gender identity.

Published on:

By

The American Jobs Act, a bill that President Obama is urging Congress to pass, would prohibit certain employers from discriminating against unemployed applicants. Under the American Jobs Act, it would be an “unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.” Detractors of the bill argue that it will open the door to “nuisance lawsuits.” Supporters of the bill hail the protections against unemployment discrimination as a common sense way to protect people who have been unemployed a long time due to no fault of their own from unfair discrimination.

The District of Columbia and Chicago are also considering passing laws that prohibit unemployment discrimination. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed a similar bill into law earlier this year that prohibits employers from posting job advertisements which state that unemployed people may not apply.

Published on:

By

Matthew Doucette, a 29 year-old Sysco warehouse worker, injured his back in April 2004. He was on light duty for two weeks but lost no earnings as a result of the injury. Sysco terminated his employment for reasons unrelated to his injury in May 2004 and Doucette had no further problems with his back until 2008, when he reinjured it while working for a different employer. In January 2009, Doucette filed a petition seeking compensation from his April 2004 date of injury to the present and continuing. The hearing officer found that Doucette was entitled to the protection of the Act for the 2004 injury even though he lost no earnings because of it. Due to a procedural glitch, the insurance company failed to file the Notice of Controversy contesting the claim within the required 14 day time period. The insurance company filed the Notice on the morning of the 15th day. The hearing officer found that the insurance company had violated the “14 day rule” requiring insurance companies to pay or contest claims within 14 days and ordered the insurance company to pay total incapacity benefits from the original date of injury, April 2004, forward, even though Doucette lost no earnings as a result of that injury. The result was a $140,000 award to Doucette. The Court acknowledged that while the result may be unfair to the insurance company, it had no authority to void the penalty.

Published on:

By

On September 16, 2011, federal judge D. Brock Hornby granted a motion for conditional certification of a collective action against FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (Fed Ex) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A group of Fed Ex drivers brought this case against Fed Ex because they claim that Fed Ex misclassified them as “independent contractors” instead of employees and, consequently, failed to pay them overtime. In granting the motion for conditional certification, Judge Hornby found that the drivers who brought the case held similar jobs and suffered from the same allegedly unlawful policy. Conditional certification is a procedural hurdle that the drivers had to overcome before they could begin to send notices to other drivers who may be eligible to join the lawsuit against Fed Ex.

Many employers misclassify employees as independent contractors and, as a result, fail to respect these misclassified employees’ rights to overtime pay and other workplace protections. If your employer classifies you as an independent contractor but you believe that your employment relationship is more like that of an employee, you should call an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

Published on:

By

Today, the U.S. District Court in Portland, Maine denied Lincare, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a claim of retaliation under the False Claims Act (FCA). The anti-retaliation provisions of the FCA protect whistleblowers from retaliation when they “pursue, investigate, or contribute to an action exposing fraud against the [federal] government.”

Former Lincare employee Adam Jewell filed his FCA retaliation claim after Lincare terminated his employment. Mr. Jewell’s lawsuit alleges that Lincare terminated his employment because he reported to Lincare that his immediate supervisor was forging signatures on documents and backdating documents that Lincare submitted to the government for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements. Lincare argued that terminating an employee for blowing the whistle on his supervisor’s practice of forging and backdating Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement documents does not violate the FCA. The Court rejected this argument. It held that Lincare could not terminate Mr. Jewel for reporting his supervisor because his reports “concerned Lincare’s fraudulent billing practices.”

Attorneys Peter Thompson, Chad T. Hansen, and Allison Gray, of the Maine Employee Rights Group, represent Mr. Jewell in this lawsuit.

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