• 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

On February 4, 2011, Judge Woodcock, of the U.S. District Court in Bangor, ruled that a jury could reasonably find that Correctional Medical Services, Inc. fired a whistleblower named Thomas Halkett because he blew the whistle on Correctional Medical Services’ (CMS) allegedly unlawful activity.

CMS provides health care to prison inmates across the country. It is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Halkett is a licensed clinical professional counselor. In connection with his employment at CMS, he provided mental health care to inmates from Downeast Correctional Facility in Machiasport, Maine.

Throughout the course of his employment, Mr. Halkett repeatedly complained about what, he believed to be, illegal breaches of confidentiality laws. For instance, he complained that some nurses illegally removed documents from the medical file of an inmate. He alleged that these nurses removed the documents in order to defend themselves against a complaint filed with the Maine Board of Nursing. Judge Woodcock held that there was enough evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that CMS fired Mr. Halkett because of his opposition to these illegal activities. CMS denies these allegations. As such, a jury will likely have to decide what actually happened.

Published on:

By

On January 27, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employee may not take unpaid leave from work to care for a family member so that he can undergo religious healing rituals. A former employee of the Lahey Clinic, Marial Lucia Tayag, brought the case. The Lahey Clinic fired Mrs. Tayag because she took leave from work to care for her chronically ill husband while they went on a healing pilgrimage to a Catholic church in the Philippines. Mrs. Tayag’s husband suffers from serious medical conditions, including gout, chronic liver and heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and kidney problems that led to a transplant in 2000. While in the Philippines they prayed and met with priests and other pilgrims.

Mrs. Tayag argued that the Lahey Clinic violated her rights under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) because she was entitled to take leave to care for her husband while they were on their healing pilgrimage. The First Circuit (which is the federal appellate court for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico) rejected Mrs. Tayag’s argument. It held that the FMLA did not protect Mrs. Tayag because her husband did not receive medical care from a “health care provider,” as that term is defined in the FMLA, during their healing pilgrimage. The court noted that federal regulations permit Christian Scientists to take FMLA leave for religious healing but did not extend that regulation to apply to Catholics.

The FMLA and the regulations that accompany it are sometimes difficult to navigate. If you are not sure whether your employer has violated your rights under the FMLA, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to find out.

Published on:

By

On January 24, 2011, the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) unanimously found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Dudley’s Diner discriminated against Kelly Chipman because of her vision problems. The Diner, located in Belfast, Maine, fired Ms. Chipman on March 5, 2009 because of her vision problems. Dudley’s Diner argued that Ms. Chipman’s vision problems made her unsafe to carry coffee and other hot beverages. The MHRC found that Dudley’s Diner made this decision based on unproven assumptions about Ms. Chipman’s disability. Under the Maine Human Rights Act, an employer must perform an individualized assessment of a person with a disability to determine if she is actually unable to perform her job safely before it can terminate her for safety reasons.

Published on:

By

On January 19, 2011, Judge Woodcock, of the U.S. District Court in Bangor, ruled that a jury could reasonably find that Crisis & Counseling Centers, Inc. fired a whistleblower named Ellen Gammon because she blew the whistle on Crisis & Counseling’s allegedly illegal and unsafe business practices.

Crisis & Counseling provides counseling services, crisis interventions, substance abuse counseling, and related educational services for clients and families at its residential and outpatient crisis facilities. Ms. Gammon worked for Crisis & Counseling as a crisis worker in its mobile crisis unit. The mobile crisis unit provided 24-hour telephone and walk-in counseling services as well as off-site mental health assessments and evaluations, which often occurred in clients’ homes.

Ms. Gammon claims that she opposed Crisis & Counseling’s fraudulent practice of billing clients for work it did not do. She also claims that she opposed unsafe practices such as ignoring safety concerns about certain clients. Judge Woodcock held that there was enough evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that Crisis & Counseling fired Ms. Gammon because of her opposition to these, and other, illegal and/or unsafe activities. Crisis & Counseling denies these allegations. As such, a jury will likely have to decide what actually happened.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Maine Legislature is looking for ways to reduce the length of time it takes for the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) to investigate discrimination complaints. The MHRC is the state agency that investigates complaints of unlawful discrimination in employment as well as other settings. The Legislature has asked the MHRC to provide it with ideas on how to reduce the length of time it takes to investigate complaints. The MHRC recently held a meeting open to the public on this topic.

The Legislature’s call to reduce the amount of time it takes the MHRC to investigate complaints of employment discrimination comes amidst a nationwide surge in employment discrimination complaints. According to a recent report from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), last year it received more complaints of employment discrimination than at any time in its 45 year history. Many believe high unemployment is a reason for the increase. “I think when people are less likely to find a new job, they’re more inclined to file a charge of discrimination,” EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser said. “Whereas in the past they might just walk off and go to another job, nowadays they can’t really do that, because there are no jobs.”

Published on:

By

A federal judge in Philadelphia recently decided that a jury will decide this question in a case that pits a former television news anchor against the television station that fired him. Fox 29 fired news anchor Tom Burlington because Mr. Burlington used the n-word during a discussion with his co-workers.

Mr. Burlington, who is white, claims that Fox 29 unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race. He claims that Fox 29 allowed black employees to use the n-word. He believes Fox 29 discriminated against him because of his race. He argues that if he had been black, Fox 29 would not have fired him for his use of the n-word. Fox 29 argues that Mr. Burlington’s comparison between his use of the n-word and black employees’ use of the n-word ignores the fact that his use of the n-word offended some black employees; whereas no one took offense when the black employees used the n-word. Fox 29 also argues that it had the right to fire Mr. Burlington because his use of the n-word caused the station to suffer bad publicity. A jury will have to decide who is right.

This case illustrates why it is a bad idea for any employee to use the n-word at work, no matter what his race is. While you may not intend to offend anyone when you use the word, someone may take offense. If you work in a place where people use the n-word, and you want to do something to change that practice, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer first.

Published on:

By

The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entitles you to a jury trial if your employer violates your common law rights. For example, if you and your employer had a contract which set forth how much your employer would pay you and it violated the contract, the Seventh Amendment would entitle you to a jury trial.

The Seventh Amendment helps to level the playing field between extremely powerful corporations and ordinary people. For that reason, some extremely powerful corporations require job applicants to waive their Seventh Amendment rights before they will hire them. They sneak “arbitration clauses” into the fine print of employment applications or employee handbooks. These arbitration clauses require you to give up your right to a jury trial and, instead, pursue your claims in a private judicial system that has many features which benefit companies and disadvantage employees–that is why companies require employees to agree to them.

Even if you notice the arbitration clause in your employment application and object to it, the employer will almost never hire you unless you agree to it. As more and more companies use these arbitration clauses, it will become harder and harder for people to find jobs with employers that do not require them to relinquish their constitutional rights.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

A group of people who worked as FedEx drivers have sued FedEx because they claim FedEx misclassified them as independent contractors. They argue that FedEx should have classified them as employees instead.

By treating the drivers as independent contractors, FedEx saved money on overtime pay, unemployment taxes, payroll taxes, and workers compensation insurance premiums. FedEx likely decided to classify these drivers as independent contractors in order to avoid paying these types of taxes, insurance premiums, and wages. If FedEx should have treated them as employees, it will have to pay them unpaid overtime pay and other compensation.

Even if an employer, like FedEx, labels a group of workers “independent contractors,” that does not mean that those workers are automatically independent contractors in the eyes of the law. Whether FedEx should have treated these drivers as employees, instead of independent contractors, depends in large part on the amount of control FedEx exercised over their work. The group of drivers who brought this lawsuit claim that FedEx should have treated them as employees, not independent contractors, because of the amount of control FedEx exercised over their work. The court will have to decide whether the drivers are correct or whether FedEx is correct.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In the coming legislative session, Republicans are going to try to enact reforms that will impact Maine state employees. For instance, they have proposed an elimination of the Labor Committee in the Maine legislature which has jurisdiction over issues such as workplace safety and wage laws.

Republicans have also proposed so-called “right to work” legislation. Such legislation would allow a state employee to decide that he would rather free-ride on the benefits the union extracts from the state instead of paying union dues. Of course, many individuals would likely take this free ride because they want the benefits of union membership without paying for them. This would likely weaken the union and water down the benefits that state employees enjoy.

Republicans claim that they have proposed these reforms because of an under-funded pension system and other budgetary constraints. If you have an opinion about these, and other, proposed reforms, you should contact your representative.

Published on:

By

On December 6, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review a case from California called Dukes v. Wal-Mart. Dukes is a class action in which the plaintiffs claim that Wal-Mart engaged in a widespread practice of sex discrimination. They claim that Wal-Mart discriminated against women with respect to job assignments, pay decisions and training; and retaliates against women who complain about such practices.

The Supreme Court, however, will not decide whether Wal-Mart discriminated against its female employees. Instead, it will decide whether the plaintiffs can bring their case, on behalf of about 500,000 women who worked for Wal-Mart, in the form of a class action. Class actions make it easier for large groups of people to receive compensation when employers violate their rights. For that reason, employers routinely seek to prevent class actions. They try to force employees to bring their cases individually.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in California, decided that the class action could go forward. However, five of the eleven judges on that court believed that the class action should not go forward. Some people who regularly follow the Supreme Court believe that the Supreme Court, due to its bias against class action cases, will reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

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