• 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 Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has found reasonable grounds to believe that Tamco Transportation, headquartered in Presque Isle, discriminated against Peter Freeman because of his bipolar disorder.

Mr. Freeman worked for Tamco as a truck driver. When Mr. Freeman told the owner of Tamco that he had bipolar disorder, he said “that explains a lot.” When Tamco later terminated Mr. Freeman, the owner told him that he needed to lay him off due to a lack of work. However, when Mr. Freeman filed for unemployment compensation, the owner changed his reason for the termination. He told the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation that he actually terminated Mr. Freeman, in part, because he “appears to be bipolar.” Tamco’s owner continued to change his reasoning for the termination during the MHRC’s investigation. At one point, he told the MHRC that he terminated Mr. Freeman, in part, because he was in an accident with his truck. He later admitted that the accident was not Mr. Freeman’s fault and that he did not consider the accident when he terminated him. Tamco’s claim that it had to lay off Mr. Freeman due to a lack of work also did not make sense to the MHRC because Tamco hired another truck driver just a couple days after it terminated Mr. Freeman.

Chad Hansen of the Maine Employee Rights Group represents Mr. Freeman.

Published on:

By

On April 11, 2011, the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) found that the moving and storage company Parker K. Bailey & Sons, Inc. of Waterville fired Rodney Witham because he blew the whistle on the company’s illegal deductions from employees’ pay. According to Mr. Witham and another witness, he complained to the company about these illegal deductions and, when the company did not change its practices, he complained to the Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). In response to Mr. Witham’s complaint, MDOL investigated Parker K. Bailey & Sons and found that it had, in fact, illegally deducted money from employees’ paychecks. A couple months later, Parker K. Bailey & Sons terminated Mr. Witham claiming that it had to eliminate his truck driver position due to financial considerations.

In finding against the company, the MHRC found it noteworthy that Parker K. Bailey & Sons advertised that it was looking to hire new truck drivers shortly after it terminated Mr. Witham. According to a witness, the General Manager said that the company was looking for a driver to replace Mr. Witham. This evidence contradicted Parker K. Bailey & Sons’ claim that it eliminated Mr. Witham’s position. Furthermore, a secretary for the company told a witness after Mr. Witham contacted MDOL that Mr. Witham should “watch himself” because management was looking for a reason to fire him.

Under Maine’s Whistleblower Protection Act, an employer may not retaliate against an employee because he complains about the employer’s unlawful activity. If you believe your employer has discriminated against you because you complained about its unlawful activity, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to discuss your rights.

Published on:

By

A Bangor organization called the Workers Rights Board of Eastern Maine (WRB) has reached out to both Eastern Maine Medical Center (EMMC) and its nurses in an effort to bring them together to resolve their ongoing labor dispute. Last month, WRB sent letters to EMMC and its nurses inviting them to a “Public Forum on Staffing and Health Care Quality at EMMC.” The forum is scheduled to take place at the Bangor Public Library on April 25, 2011. At the forum, nurses themselves will have the opportunity to engage in a public dialogue about patient safety and how the ongoing labor dispute affects it.

In WRB’s letter to EMMC, it reported some information that the nurses provided to it. According to the nurses, EMMC has spent over $60,000 on advertisements disparaging the nurses. It has also retained an expensive law firm with a reputation for union busting. WRB said that it is “troubled by the use of patient care dollars, which presumably include state and federal tax funds, being spent on fighting the nurses.”

On April 8, 2011, EMMC responded to WRB’s invitation to this forum and said that it did not plan to attend. In its response, EMMC did not dispute that it has hired a union busting law firm or that it has spent $60,000 in advertising to disparage the nurses. EMMC’s response also states that the nurses’ national union is pursuing a “national agenda” in Bangor with no “willingness to help find solutions to a very complex set of realities.” The WRB forum sounds like an opportunity for the actual nurses to communicate with EMMC management about these “complex” realities. For that reason, it remains unclear why EMMC has refused to attend.

Published on:

By

Rep. David Burns, R-Whiting, has reportedly sponsored a bill that would allow employers to pay teenagers $2.25 less per hour than they have to pay workers who are 20 years old and older. The bill would reduce the minimum wage for teenagers from $7.50 per hour to $5.25 per hour. Under this proposed legislation, L.D. 1346, an employer could pay this reduced wage for the first 180 days of the teenage employee’s employment.

Under this new law, employers will have an incentive to hire teenagers instead of older workers. For instance, if an inn needs a housekeeper for the busy summer season, it can hire a teenager for $5.25 per hour or someone older than 19 for $7.50 per hour. Who do you think it is going to hire? That’s right, the teenager. If this bill becomes law, unemployed Mainers who need work to support their families will likely have an even more difficult time finding jobs. After all, there is no evidence that a shortage of unskilled labor exists in Maine.

Another Republican lawmaker, Debra Plowman, is sponsoring legislation that would allow teenagers to work longer hours. The proponents of Plowman’s bill touted it as a way to help teenagers save for college. This new bill would obviously cut against this purported goal. The money that teenagers would earn working additional hours under Plowman’s bill would be reduced by the lower hourly wage they would receive under Burns’ bill. Moreover, as discussed in an earlier post on this blog, as teenagers work longer hours they experience a higher risk of bad grades and behavior problems, such as drug use.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On March 24, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized new regulations for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Congress revamped the ADA in 2008. The president signed the revamped version into law in January 2009. The EEOC’s new regulations provide guidance to employers, employees, and courts on how to interpret certain portions of the new ADA.

Before Congress revamped the ADA, employers had successfully convinced the courts to interpret the ADA in a very restrictive way. Under this restrictive interpretation of the ADA, employers could discriminate against employees because they had conditions like cancer, multiple sclerosis, and bipolar disorder. The courts allowed these employers to discriminate against employees suffering from conditions like these under the rationale that these conditions were not disabilities under the ADA. For instance, courts held that some people with bipolar disorder did not have a disability because medication controlled their symptoms. Accordingly, courts permitted employers to fire someone merely because he had bipolar disorder that was controlled by medication.

Under the revamped ADA and the new regulations, people who seem to intuitively fit the definition of a person with a disability will now receive protection from discrimination that they did not enjoy under the old ADA. For instance, under the new regulations, there is a list of conditions like cancer, multiple sclerosis, and bipolar disorder which should “easily” meet the new definition of disability.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Currently, it is legal for an employer to refuse to hire anyone who is unemployed. Obviously, if this practice becomes widespread, the current high unemployment rate would remain high for much longer. A Congressman from Georgia believes this is unfair and he has proposed legislation to make it illegal. Under the Congressman’s bill, The Fair Employment Act of 2011 (H.R. 1113), the same federal law that protects job applicants from religious discrimination, race discrimination, and sex discrimination would also protect applicants from discrimination on the basis of their employment status.

This bill comes on the heels of claims that discrimination against the jobless is a covert way of discriminating against the aged and racial minorities. Older workers and racial minorities were particularly hard hit during the recession. Thus, if an employer refuses to hire an unemployed applicant, it is more likely that it will not hire an older worker or a racial minority.

Published on:

By

Under current Maine law, with some exceptions, employers may not work minors aged 16-18 more than 20 hours per week while school is in session. The Maine legislature is considering a bill that would allow employers to work minors aged 16-18 32 hours per week while school is in session. The bill would also change existing law and permit employers to work minors aged 16-18 until 11:00 pm on school nights.

Proponents of the bill argue that teens could use the extra income to save for college. However, critics of the law cite a study which says that teens who work more than 20 hours per week during the school year are at higher risk for bad grades and behavior problems, such as drug use and delinquency. There are certainly pros and cons to this bill. Whether it will result in a net benefit to Mainers is uncertain.

Published on:

By

The Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has found reasonable grounds to believe that Hannaford Bros., a part of the multi-national corporation Delhaize Group, unlawfully discriminated against Ernesto Duran. Mr. Duran, a Latino gentleman originally from Puerto Rico, worked for Hannaford for about eight years until Hannaford fired him on May 20, 2009. The MHRC found that Hannaford fired Mr. Duran because of his race, color, and national origin.

According to the MHRC report, the person who got Mr. Duran fired had said to Mr. Duran “why don’t you go back where you came from.” Mr. Duran also claims that his managers disciplined him for alleged misconduct that he did not commit. He claims that white employees committed misconduct similar to what he was accused of and they received no discipline. The MHRC asked Hannaford to provide disciplinary records for employees in Mr. Duran’s department. Prior to the date Mr. Duran filed his complaint with the MHRC, only non-white employees in his department received discipline.

Hannaford has not contested the MHRC Investigator’s finding that it unlawfully discriminated against Mr. Duran. The MHRC has this matter on its consent agenda for its March 7, 2011 meeting. Under its normal procedure, the MHRC will vote and confirm the Investigator’s finding. Mr. Duran and Hannaford will then go through a conciliation process in an effort to settle Mr. Duran’s case. If they do not reach a settlement, the next step would be a lawsuit in court. Mr. Duran is represented by Chad Hansen from the Maine Employee Rights Group.

Published on:

By

Restaurant Opportunities Center United, an organization dedicated to advancing the interests of restaurant workers, recently released a study of working conditions that focused on restaurants located in New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, Washington, DC–and Maine. Their research revealed, among other things, that minority restaurant workers disproportionately work the least desirable jobs in restaurants. Consequently, restaurant workers of color earn about $3.70 per hour less than white restaurant workers.

This large disparity in wages could reveal inherent racial discrimination in the restaurant industry. It is illegal under Maine and federal law for a restaurant to steer minority workers towards certain jobs and white workers towards others. It is also illegal for restaurants to pay a worker less because of his race.

If you work in a restaurant and you believe your employer has discriminated against you because of your race, you may not be alone. You should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

Published on:

By

On February 17, 2011, Massachusetts’ governor signed an executive order which bans discrimination against state employees and employees of state contractors because of their gender identity. This new law would protect some of Massachusetts’ transgender employees from discrimination. However, it does not protect all transgender employees–it only protects those working for the state or a state contractor. The law also does not allow any employees to bring a lawsuit against their employer if the employer discriminates against them because of their gender identity.

The Maine Human Rights Act, which protects all employees in Maine, prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” which includes a person’s “gender identity.” Thus, Maine offers broader protection than Massachusetts for transgender employees. If you work in Maine and your employer discriminates against you because you are a transgender individual, your employer has violated the Maine Human Rights Act. If that happens to you, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to discuss your legal rights.

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