• 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 U.S. Supreme Court will consider this question next week when it hears arguments in Thompson v. North American Stainless.

According to court filings, in September 2002, Eric Thompson’s wife (who was his fiance at the time) filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against her employer, North American Stainless. Coincidentally, Mr. Thompson worked for North American Stainless too. Her complaint alleged that North American Stainless discriminated against her because of her sex. On February 13, 2003, the EEOC informed North American Stainless that Mr. Thompson’s wife had filed this sex discrimination complaint. Two weeks later, North American Stainless decided to fire Mr. Thompson even though it had given him a raise for good performance a few months earlier. Mr. Thompson then filed his own complaint with the EEOC for retaliation claiming that North American Stainless fired him merely because his wife had accused it of sex discrimination.

The EEOC found in Mr. Thompson’s favor. However, a federal court in Kentucky and, then, a divided federal appeals court in Ohio both found that the law permitted North American Stainless to retaliate against Mr. Thompson. These courts concluded that the law simply does not protect employees from retaliation when their spouses, or other people they’re closely associated with, complain about illegal discrimination.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Nurses at Eastern Maine Medical Center (“EMMC”) went on strike November 22, 2010 because they and EMMC have not reached agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement. The nurses’ union and hospital management cannot reach agreement on the issue of staffing levels. The nurses believe that EMMC has dangerously cut back on staffing levels, putting patients’ safety at risk.
“They cut back the total number of nurses, then they cut back the hours,” said nurse Bobbi Coombs, who has worked at EMMC for 23 years. “It is getting harder and harder to provide the care we want to give.”

While these nurses have chosen collective action to oppose what they believe are threats to patient safety, other nurses oppose threats to patient safety on their own. If you are a nurse and your employer retaliates against you because you expressed concerns about patient safety, either through collective action or on your own, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn about your rights.

Published on:

By

Maine’s U.S. Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, voted with the rest of the Republican party today to filibuster the Paycheck Fairness Act. The filibuster effectively killed this piece of legislation. Members of Congress drafted the Paycheck Fairness Act to address persistent wage inequality between men and women. Even though women make-up half of the American workforce, they only earn $0.77 for every $1.00 paid to men.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would have closed loopholes in the current law which employers exploit. It would have added protections for women and, consequently, deterred employers from discriminating against women. In particular, the Paycheck Fairness Act would have required an employer to state legitimate, non-discriminatory, reasons for its decision to pay women less than men for the same job. It would have prevented employers from discriminating against employees who share information about their salaries–one of the primary ways women discover pay discrimination. It would have also required employers to compensate victims of pay discrimination for all of the losses they suffered.

The opponents to the bill cited problems with it that they claim would have unfairly hurt businesses. Given the fact that employers who pay men and women the same would not have violated the law, this seems dubious.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On November 9, 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued final regulations to implement the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA). According to the EEOC, “Congress enacted GINA with strong bipartisan support in 2008, in response to concerns that patients would decline to take advantage of the increasing availability of genetic testing out of concern that they could lose their jobs or health insurance if such tests revealed adverse information.” Under GINA, employers may not treat employees differently because of such things as genetic test results and family medical history. For instance, an employer cannot refuse to insure an employee because that employee has a family history of heart disease. In a press release, the EEOC stated that “[t]he final regulations provide examples of genetic tests; more fully explain GINA’s prohibition against requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information; provide model language employers can use when requesting medical information from employees to avoid acquiring genetic information; and describe how GINA applies to genetic information obtained via electronic media, including websites and social networking sites.”

If you believe that your employer has discriminated against you because of your genetic information, you should call an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

Published on:

By

On November 1, 2010, the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) found that Central City Sheet Metal, Inc. discriminated against Patrick Michaud because of his disability when it terminated his employment. Central City Sheet Metal terminated Mr. Michaud on November 25, 2008. Prior to his termination, Mr. Michaud had worked for the company seven years as a foreman.

Mr. Michaud has heart problems, diabetes, and pinched nerves in his left hand. He worked through these health issues but he needed accommodations from his employer to do so. One of these accommodations was a 30 pound lifting restriction that Mr. Michaud’s doctor imposed on him in January of 2008.

On November 20, 2008, less than a week before his termination, Mr. Michaud claims that he informed his supervisor that he would need to undergo surgery on his hand in the near future. At that time, he was also still working under the 30 pound lifting restriction that his doctor had imposed in January 2008.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Fred Cyr, the former chief operator of Gardiner’s waste-water treatment plant, claims that the city forced him out of his job because he complained about health and safety issues at the plant. More specifically, he claims that he complained about vandalism which, in some instances, caused raw sewage to leak out into the Kennebec River. According to Mr. Cyr, the Director of the city’s Wastewater and Public Works Department created a hostile work environment and took adverse actions against him because of his complaints. The city maintains that Mr. Cyr’s whistleblower claim is “baseless.”

Mr. Cyr’s whistleblower claim is currently pending with the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC). The MHRC is the state agency charged with enforcing Maine’s Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). The MHRC typically conducts an investigation before it decides whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that an employer has violated the MWPA. The MHRC has not completed its investigation in this case yet.

Published on:

By

On October 20, 2010 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a public meeting to hear testimony about the way employers use credit history checks to screen job applicants. Some believe that credit checks have a disparate impact on minorities, women and the disabled. Opponents of the use of credit checks also pointed out at the meeting that credit checks create a “Catch-22” for the unemployed. “You can’t re-establish your credit if you can’t get a job, and you can’t get a job if you’ve got bad credit,” said Chi Chi Wu of the National Consumer Law Center. Witnesses who testified on behalf of employers emphasized that credit checks are just one “piece of the puzzle” that employers look at when they make hiring decisions.

Published on:

By

On October 13, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kasten v. St. Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. In Kasten, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Chicago, held that St. Gobain did not violate the law when it retaliated against Mr. Kasten because he complained about St. Gobain’s violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). FLSA is the federal law that requires employers to pay employees overtime pay and a minimum wage. FLSA has a whistleblower protection section which prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who “file” complaints about violations of FLSA.

The Seventh Circuit held that St. Gobain could retaliate against Mr. Kasten because he failed to put his complaint about FLSA violations in writing. It reasoned that a complaint is not “filed” unless it is in writing. The U.S. Supreme Court will resolve a disagreement between various federal appeals courts over this issue. Some courts have found that employers may not retaliate against employees who make oral complaints. Some courts, like the Seventh Circuit, have found that employees are only protected from retaliation if they make written complaints.

Not all whistleblower protection laws require employees to make written complaints but some may. To be safe, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer before you blow the whistle on your employer’s unlawful activities.

Published on:

By

In a federal lawsuit, the former Town Manager of Stonington, Maine, Howard Willingham, claims that the Town discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. The Town filed a motion that asked the court to dismiss the case. The Town argued that Mr. Willingham did not file his lawsuit within the statute of limitations set forth in a right-to-sue letter that he received from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court rejected the Town’s argument and permitted the case to go forward. The court held that a different, longer statute of limitations applied to Mr. Willingham’s claims.

Many employee rights statutes have different statutes of limitation. If you believe your rights may have been violated, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer immediately to make sure that you do not miss your opportunity to bring a claim.

Published on:

By

A disturbing sign in workplaces across the country is the rise of discrimination against Muslims. According to data collected by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), complaints of religious discrimination from Muslims in 2010 are 20% higher than in 2009. Although Muslims comprise less than 2% of the U.S. population, they file about 25% of all religious discrimination claims that are filed with the EEOC. This increase in complaints has led the EEOC to file lawsuits on behalf of some Muslims. For instance, it recently sued Abercrombie & Fitch claiming the company refused to hire an 18-year old Muslim girl because she wore a head scarf.

Religious discrimination like this is not only a violation of federal law but also a violation of the Maine Human Rights Act. If you believe you or a co-worker have experienced religious discrimination, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer who can help you determine what you should do about it.

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