• 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) found on May 24, 2010 that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Town of Sanford discriminated against a Lyman woman, Lynnia Burpee, because of her age. She was 58 years old at the time.

The Town denied Ms. Burpee a position as a dispatcher. Ms. Burpee had over 19 years experience as a dispatcher at the time she applied for the job. She had worked the previous 8 1/2 years for York County as a dispatcher. Ms. Burpee applied for the job with the Town of Sanford because York County discontinued its dispatch service. The other York County dispatchers who lost their jobs with the County also applied for positions with the Town. The Town offered all of the York County dispatchers jobs except Ms. Burpee. These other dispatchers were 31, 32, 38, and 49 years old.

According to the MHRC Investigator, the Town claimed that it did not hire Ms. Burpee because she had a low score on her Oral Board review. However, the Town hired a 32 year old who had a lower score than Ms. Burpee. It also hired a 34 year old applicant who did not even go through the Oral Board process.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On May 24, 2010, a Cumberland County Superior Court jury awarded Michael Afthim $1,015,000 in damages in connection with Mr. Afthim’s lawsuit against his former employer, Alternative Labor Resources (“ALR”) for violating Mr. Afthim’s rights under the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act and defamation.

Mr. Afthim was a superintendent employed by ALR. Mr. Afthim became concerned about a number of safety issues in the warehouse that he ran including the lack of ventilation, the company’s decision to use cheaper cotton gloves instead of splinter resistant leather gloves, and the insufficient staffing on the second shift. Mr. Afthim noted that the ventilation was so poor in the warehouse that his employees were inhaling significant amounts of dust and dirt. Mr. Afthim made multiple reports and complaints to ALR’s management about the ventilation issue but ALR did nothing. Mr. Afthim also noted that the company’s switch to cotton gloves from leather gloves was leading to significant splinters for his employees who spent their days constructing and repairing wooden pallets. Mr. Afthim also brought this concern to ALR without an adequate response. Mr. Afthim then noticed that due to understaffing that the workers on the second shift were rushing to keep up with their duties and he became very concerned that this would inevitably lead to a serious injury such as a fall or an accident with the fork lift. Once again, Mr. Afthim brought his concerns to ALR management and they expressed frustration with him for his complaints. ALR then fired Mr. Afthim for his complaints.

ALR subsequently lied about its reasons for terminating Mr. Afthim’s employment and told the Department of Labor and the Maine Human Rights Commission that Mr. Afthim had been terminated for poor performance. Also, Mr. Afthim was forced to disclose ALR’s false explanation for his termination to potential employers who would routinely ask why he had been terminated from his last place of employment. As a result Mr. Afthim suffered significant lost wages.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On April 4, 2010, Maine United States District Court Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. concluded that claims of age discrimination in hiring brought by plaintiff Glenn Duckworth in connection with the failure of Mid State Machine to hire Duckworth in 2005 for an open position were timely even though the Plaintiff did not file a Charge with the Maine Human Rights Commission and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission until over three years after the alleged discrimination and did not file his claim in court until almost four years after the alleged discrimination. The case is reported as Duckworth v. Mid-State Machine Products, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2010 WL 1348245 (D.Me. 2010)

In this case, Mr. Duckworth had worked for Mid State Machine (“MSM”) for over six years from 1995 to 2002. For most of this time, Mr. Duckworth worked as the facilities’ gage control technician. In 2002, Duckworth was laid off in a company wide reduction in force. The layoff had nothing to do with Duckworth’s performance and performance evaluations documenting Duckworth’s performance during his employment with MSM indicated that he had performed the duties of his job well. In 2005, Duckworth was seeking work and so called MSM to see if they were hiring. Duckworth spoke with four different managers at MSM on five occasions and during these conversations indicated that he was interested in returning to work for MSM if they were hiring. Duckworth also provided MSM with a copy of his resume.

In fact, during this time in 2005, MSM was seeking to fill Duckworth’s old gage control technician position. MSM’s managers did not mention to Duckworth that the gage control technician position was open. MSM’s hiring manager was made aware of Duckworth’s interest in returning to work for MSM and claims that he initially considered Duckworth for the position but subsequently decided to hire a much younger and less experienced candidate instead of Duckworth. The reasons giving by MSM’s manager for hiring the much younger and inexperienced candidate over Duckworth are in dispute and Duckworth alleges that the reasons given by MSM for their failure to hire him are untrue and pretexts.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Maine legislature recently failed to pass legislation that would have protected Maine workers who could not come to work because they were sick. Initially, the proponents of the legislation wanted to pass a law that would require employers to provide paid sick leave. When they could not garner enough support for that bill, they narrowed the legislation to only prohibit employers from terminating employees who cannot work because they or a family member are sick. Even that scaled back bill failed. As a result, many workers with contagious diseases, like swine flu, will be forced to come to work sick or lose their jobs.

You should know that an employer can terminate you for missing work because you are sick unless you fall under protections for employees with disabilities, workplace injuries, or serious health conditions. If you believe your employer has terminated you unfairly because you missed work due to your own health problems, or the health problems of a family member, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer.

Published on:

By

The Obama administration is considering a policy called the “High Road Contracting Policy.” This policy would give employers that treat their employees better than the law requires an advantage when they compete for federal contracts. It is reported that this policy would advantage contractors that provide hourly workers with a “living wage,” health insurance, an employer-funded retirement plan and paid sick days.

Senators Collins and Snowe have signed a letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, expressing concerns that they have with this “High Road” policy. Among other things, they are concerned that the policy would adversely affect small businesses.

Published on:

By

There are federal and state laws that protect truck drivers in Maine who refuse to operate illegally. For instance, if you have refused to drive longer than the DOT allows, refused to doctor your logbook, refused to drive an unsafe truck, or complained about violations of DOT regulations, the law prohibits your employer from retaliating against you. (Incidentally, that was not an exhaustive list of illegal reasons for an employer to retaliate against you, just some examples.) The federal law that protects you is the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). In Maine, the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) also protects you.

While it is illegal for employers to retaliate against truck drivers who refuse to violate the law, or complain about violations of the law, it is sometimes hard to prove such retaliation took place. It is even harder to prove retaliation took place if you do not have a good lawyer on your side. So, if you believe that your employer is going to retaliate against you, or has already retaliated against you, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer who is knowledgeable about the STAA and Maine’s WPA.

Published on:

By

On December 19, 2009, President Obama signed the Defense Appropriations bill into law. The bill included an amendment added by Minnesota Senator Al Franken and referred to as the “Franken Amendment” that precludes employers who enter into contracts with the Department of Defense from entering into pre-dispute “agreements” with their employees that require the employee to give up their right to pursue harassment and discrimination claims under Title VII in court in favor of private binding arbitration. The new law also prevents defense contractors from enforcing already existing pre-dispute arbitration agreements.

The amendment was prompted by the gang rape of a KBR/Halliburton employee in Iraq by her coworkers. When the employee attempted to pursue a claim against her employer in court the employer, KBR, kept her claim out of court by using a fine print agreement that it had required her to sign when she started work with KBR waiving her right to a jury trial and instead agreeing to submit all claims against KBR to a private and confidential arbitration run by KBR.

The KBR case reflects a growing trend as more and more employers have come to require their employees to sign away their right to pursue civil rights claims in court as a condition of their employment.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

When an employer involuntarily terminates an employee, the employee is eligible for COBRA benefits. Under COBRA, a federal law, an employee who faces involuntary termination can pay out of his own pocket to continue his or her health insurance. This is usually too expensive for employees who just lost a job. That is why, in response to the recession, Congress previously enacted legislation that provided subsidies to people eligible for COBRA benefits so that they could buy COBRA coverage. Those subsidies were set to expire on December 31, 2009. However, on December 21, 2009, the President signed legislation that extended the eligibility for the subsidy to those individuals who are involuntarily terminated and become eligible for COBRA coverage before February 28, 2010.

Published on:

By

According to various news sources, the Morning Sentinel, a newspaper in Waterville, Maine, fired reporter Larry Grard on November 10, 2009. Mr. Grard claims that the Morning Sentinel fired him because he sent an email to the Human Rights Campaign. He sent the email just after Maine voters repealed Maine’s same sex marriage law. In his email, he accused the Human Rights Campaign of being “hateful” and “venom-spewing.” Mr. Grard believes that the Morning Sentinel discriminated against him because of his conservative political beliefs. Mr. Grard’s union has filed a grievance challenging his termination.

Mainers should know that, if Mr. Grard was not in a union, he would have no claim for wrongful termination. In Maine, it is not illegal for a private employer to discriminate against someone because of their political beliefs. If you think that is wrong, you should contact your representatives in the Maine legislature.

Published on:

By

On November 21, 2009 the federal Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) became effective. Under this new law, subject to a handful of exceptions, employers may not gather genetic information about their employees. Genetic information includes an employee’s family medical history. The law also forbids employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of their genetic information. For instance, under GINA, an employer could not fire someone because he has a family history of mental illness.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency that will enforce GINA. However, before contacting the EEOC with a complaint about a violation of GINA, you should consult with an attorney experienced in representing employees.

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