• 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

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On July 6, 2011, the United States District Court of Maine in Bangor issued a decision that permits a disability discrimination lawsuit against Bath Iron Works (BIW) to go forward. A former employee of BIW, Guillermo Blanco, brought the lawsuit against BIW (which is owned by General Dynamics Corporation).

The lawsuit alleges that BIW’s doctor violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and a similar Maine law, when he shared Mr. Blanco’s confidential medical information with BIW management. BIW fired Mr. Blanco because of the information the doctor provided to management. BIW said it fired Mr. Blanco because it thought he lied about the fact that he had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in a medical questionnaire. Mr. Blanco said he didn’t lie; he said he didn’t think the questionnaire asked about mental health issues. The Court said it didn’t matter whether he lied or not. The ADA forbids company doctors from sharing confidential medical information with management except in limited circumstances not present in this case. When the doctor told management that Mr. Blanco had ADHD, a violation of the ADA occurred. BIW will be held responsible for the violation if Mr. Blanco presents evidence to support his allegations because BIW’s doctor made the unlawful disclosure and its managers acted on the information.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces the ADA, “[h]istorically, many employers asked applicants and employees to provide information concerning their physical and/or mental condition. This information often was used to exclude and otherwise discriminate against individuals with disabilities–particularly nonvisible disabilities, such as diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, cancer, and mental illness–despite their ability to perform the job.” The ADA’s medical confidentiality requirements are important safeguards against discrimination because it is so easy for a manager to come up with a false excuse to fire an employee because he has a disability. By preventing managers from learning of employees’ disabilities, it prevents this type of discrimination.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

As reported here on June 3, 2011, the Maine legislature is considering a bill that would weaken public-sector unions. Ohio passed a similar law earlier this year. That law created a huge backlash from union supporters. This week, opponents of Ohio’s anti-union law delivered nearly 1.3 million signatures from Ohioans who want the anti-union law put on the ballot for a potential people’s veto. This was the largest number of signatures ever collected in Ohio for a people’s veto campaign. U.S. Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat from a blue-collar area of Ohio, described Ohio’s anti-union law as “a blatant political attack on Ohio’s teachers, firefighters, policeman, and the rest of the people that support our communities.” Maine has a people’s veto mechanism similar to Ohio’s and this campaign in Ohio could happen in Maine if anti-union bills become law.

Published on:

By

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.

Published on:

By

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.

Published on:

By

Connecticut has become the most recent state to prohibit employment discrimination against transgendered individuals. On June 4, 2011, the Connecticut Senate passed a bill prohibiting such discrimination and the Governor of Connecticut has promised to sign it into law. In a statement released after the vote, the Governor of Connecticut said, “[t]his bill is another step forward in the fight for equal rights for all of Connecticut’s citizens, and it’s the right thing to do. It’s difficult enough for people who are grappling with the issue of their gender identity, and discrimination against them has no place in our society.”

Maine has prohibited employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity since 2005. Earlier this year, Nevada enacted a law that prohibits employment discrimination against transgendered individuals. Massachusetts’ legislature is currently debating a similar bill. Recently, Tennessee went in the opposite direction of Maine. It passed a law which nullified a Nashville ordinance that prohibited discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Tennessee’s law is now the subject of a court challenge.

There is evidence that discrimination against transgendered individuals is rampant. According to the Human Rights Campaign , “in six studies conducted between 1996 and 2006, 20 to 57 percent of transgender respondents said they experienced employment discrimination, including being fired, denied a promotion or harassed.” Connecticut will be the 15th state to pass a state law that prohibits employment discrimination against transgendered individuals.

Published on:

By

The Maine legislature is considering a so-called “right to work” bill that would adversely affect public-sector unions. The bill would prohibit public-sector unions from collecting fees from non-members who reap the benefits of union services. Currently, public employees that do not join the union must pay a fee of about $5 per week to compensate the union for the services it provides to them. Those services include representation at grievance hearings and salary negotiations. This bill would strip the union of those $5 weekly fees.

According to a labor lawyer who testified before the legislature, the bill (LD 309) would also prohibit the union from collecting dues from its own members after a collective bargaining agreement expires. This would, of course, permit management to starve the union of money it needs to operate in order to extract concessions during negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement.

Earlier in this legislative session, the Maine Senate killed a similar “right to work” bill that would have impacted private-sector unions. That has not stopped private-sector unions from speaking out against this bill. Joel Pitcher, a member of Local 6 at Bath Iron Works said “it’s divide and conquer, right? They’re basically saying, ‘We’ll take (public employees) first and come after (private) later.’ … We’re ready to join the fight now.”

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, the Maine Senate Labor Committee voted to exempt DeCoster Egg Farms from Maine laws that require employers to pay employees a minimum wage, time-and-a-half for overtime, and allow them to form a union. Some of the Senators that voted to exempt DeCoster Egg Farms are reportedly having second thoughts. Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee Chairman Chris Rector (R-Thomaston) has told the Republican Senate leadership that, while he voted to exempt DeCoster Egg Farms in his committee, he has subsequently learned more about DeCoster Egg Farms which has convinced him to change his mind. “It is rare that I don’t feel solid with my decisions, but if there was ever a situation where workers should have an opportunity to organize, this is it,” said Rector. Dana Dow (R-Waldoboro) is also having second thoughts about voting to exempt DeCoster Egg Farms. “To tell you the truth, and I haven’t said this before, if the workers there, if they had a union, they wouldn’t have had the problems they did,” said Dow, stressing that unions weren’t just about salary. “In this case, I’m talking about safety, safety, safety,” Dow said.

During a Senate hearing in April, former Maine Attorney General James Tierney testified that “for at least forty years, DeCoster Egg Farms has been a habitual violator of federal and state laws dealing with labor, immigration, safety, animal cruelty, environment and health.” According to news reports, “DeCoster has also been synonymous with labor violations that include hiring 11-year-olds and a 9-year-old, recruiting and hiring illegal immigrants and helping them get fake working papers and improper removal of asbestos from barns. And that is just the beginning.”

The bill being considered is L.D. 1207.

Published on:

By

On May 16, 2011, the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) unanimously found that Total Property Services, Inc. unlawfully discriminated against Heather Hider because she was pregnant. Ms. Hider worked for Total Property Services as a cleaner from January 2009 to September 2009. According to the MHRC investigative report, Ms. Hider provided the MHRC with a recording of the phone message that her boss, Steve Booth, left her to tell her that she was fired. In the message, Mr. Booth told Ms. Hider he decided that he needed to replace her because she was pregnant and due to give birth soon.

In response to Ms. Hider’s complaint to the MHRC, Total Property Services claimed that Mr. Booth no longer worked for it at the time he fired Ms. Hider. However, Mr. Booth continued to oversee Ms. Hider after his alleged separation from the company. Total Property Services also admitted that it told no one about Mr. Booth’s alleged separation from the company. It didn’t tell its employees or its customers. As such, the MHRC found that Mr. Booth continued to have the authority to fire Ms. Hider.

The Maine Employee Rights Group represents Ms. Hider.

Published on:

By

On May 13, 2011, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an opinion in Lewis v. City of Chicago. The case will now proceed to the stage where the trial court decides how to remedy Chicago’s discrimination against African Americans who applied for firefighter positions. It is reported that Chicago will have to hire 111 African American firefighters and pay roughly $30 million to the people it discriminated against.

This was a “disparate impact” case. An employer can sometimes violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act even if it engages in a seemingly non-discriminatory practice, such as administering an entrance exam to job applicants. If the entrance exam does not predict which applicants will do the job better than others, and it has a significant disparate impact on women or minorities, the employer cannot use the exam to select applicants. If it does–as Chicago did in this case–it violates Title VII. When an employer uses a test to select applicants that does not measure applicants’ aptitude for the job and that disproportionately screens out minorities, it is in everyone’s interest to find a new test.

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