• 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

In a bill approved by the House on September 22, 2009, more than a million people could receive an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits. The bill would extend benefits to people living in states with unemployment rates higher than 8.5%. Maine’s unemployment rate was 8.6% in August.

If you’ve lost your job, unemployment benefits may not be the only remedy available to you. Sometimes an employer violates an employee’s rights when it terminates him or her. If you think your rights have been violated, you should contact a lawyer who specializes in representing employees whose rights have been violated.

Published on:

By

Many Mainers take for granted that their employers pay them at least minimum wage or time-and-a-half for overtime. However, for low-wage workers in particular, that is something no one should take for granted. In a recent study of low-wage workers around the U.S., the authors of the study found that employers routinely violate the rights of low-wage workers. Over 25% of the workers they surveyed were paid less than the minimum wage. Over 75% of the workers surveyed who worked over 40 hours per week were not paid overtime. These violations were not trivial or near the margins, either. 60% of the workers paid less than minimum wage were underpaid by $1 or more per hour. The average worker whose employer failed to fully pay him for overtime hours worked 11 hours of overtime per week.

These findings should shock you. If you believe your employer is not paying you at least minimum wage. Or you believe it is failing to fully compensate you for overtime work. You should contact an experienced employment lawyer who can advise you on what to do.

Published on:

By

Magistrate Judge Margaret Kravchuk of the United States District Court for the District of Maine has issued a recommended decision denying Fairpoint Communications’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Exclude the treatment providers of Plaintiff Cathleen Adams from testifying as experts at trial. This brings the case one step closer to being heard by a jury at the United States District Court for Bangor, Maine.

The Court order sets out that Plaintiff Cathleen Adams worked for Verizon and its predecessors for over 21 years, most recently as an administrative assistant. There was no dispute that Ms. Adams performed her job well. In the last few years of her employment with Verizon, Ms. Adams required leave from work on a number of occasions due to her own medical conditions and to care for sick family members. In April 2007, Ms. Adams again required medical leave due to her major depression and anxiety. Ms. Adams’ supervisor was angry about her need for leave and called her short term disability carrier to state that he felt she was defrauding the company, did not need medical leave, and was instead running a puppy breeding business from her home with on leave. These claims by Ms. Adams’ supervisor were false and were not based on any real evidence. It is undisputed that her supervisor never reviewed her medical records or spoke with her primary care providers who could have provided documentation and information supporting Ms. Adams’ need for leave. Ms. Adams’ short term disability carrier approved Ms. Adams’ request for short term disability benefits. In September 2007, her primary care provider released her to return to work on a part time basis. Ms. Adams’ supervisor refused the request, stating to the disability carrier that he thought Ms. Adams’ attempt to return to work part time was just part of a big game she was playing. After refusing Ms. Adams’ request to return to work part time, her supervisor ordered surveillance of her at her home. Unsurprisingly, the surveillance showed her performing activities around the house and riding her motorcycle around on short rides as she waited for her employer to allow her to return to work part time or her nurse practitioner to allow her to return to work full time. Ms. Adams’ supervisor then advocated for Ms. Adams’ termination based on the results of the investigation. He failed to mention to the company’s investigator or the manager authorizing Ms. Adams’ termination that Ms. Adams had requested to return to work part time weeks before he initiated the surveillance. Ms. Adams did return to work full time in November 2007 and performed her job well until January 3, 2008 when she was terminated in connection with her prior use of leave.

As the successor in interest, Fairpoint is now the responsible party even though Ms. Adams was terminated prior to Fairpoint’s acquisition of Verizon’s assets in Maine . Cathleen Adams’ attorneys, Peter L. Thompson and Chad T. Hansen, filed suit in federal court against Fairpoint Communications in September 2008 alleging that Fairpoint’s predecessor in interest, Verizon, violations Ms. Adams’ rights under the Maine Human Rights Act when it failed to accommodate her disability and terminated her employment on January 3, 2008 .

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On August 11, 2009, in Sensing v. Outback Steakhouse, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled against Outback Steakhouse in a disability discrimination case. (The First Circuit Court of Appeals is a federal appeals court that hears cases from Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico).

The woman who brought the case against Outback, Suzanna Sensing, had diabetes and multiple sclerosis (MS). She claimed that her supervisor terminated her because of her disabilities. Even though she had clearance from her doctor to work, Ms. Sensing’s supervisor believed that she was too much of a “liability” to the company.

As an employment lawyer who represents employees in cases where employers terminate my clients, I found the portion of the decision about the end of Ms. Sensing’s employment interesting. This is how her employment ended: Ms. Sensing’s supervisor told her that the company wanted her to undergo a medical exam to determine if she could perform her job safely. He told her that, while they waited for the results of the medical exam, she “might” be able to work light-duty at half her normal pay rate and for one-third the number of hours she normally worked. In response to this proposal, Ms. Sensing told her supervisor that she did not know if, financially, she could take such a drastic cut in pay while she waited for the results of the medical exam. She said that she wanted to talk about it with her husband. The supervisor said that while she considered the proposal he would look for a doctor to perform the medical exam and then get back to her.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Maine Supreme Court issued its decision in a whistleblower case, Maine Human Rights Commission et al. v. Saddleback, Inc. et al., on July 16, 2009. The Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) brought this case against Saddleback claiming that Saddleback had violated Maine’s Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). The MWPA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees when they report unsafe or unlawful activities. The case centered around the termination of Robert Duggan, Jr.’s employment. (For those who are not from Maine, Saddleback is a ski area in central Maine.)

The relevant facts of the case, according to the Superior Court, were as follows:

Saddleback contracted with Mr. Duggan’s employer, Integrity Electrical Installation & Service, Inc. (Integrity), to work on the installation of some snowmaking equipment. As an employee of Integrity, Mr. Duggan worked on this project as an electrician and foreman. During the course of his work, Mr. Duggan observed Saddleback employees working in an unlawful and unsafe manner. He observed Saddleback employees drinking on the job. They were performing electrical work with high voltage electrical lines even though they did not have the proper licenses to do that kind of work. On one occasion, Mr. Duggan witnessed Saddleback employees backfilling boulders and debris on top of high voltage lines in violation of the Electrical Code.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On July 14, 2009 the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Home Depot discriminated against Nicolette McGinley because of her sexual orientation and because she complained about sexual harassment. Ms. McGinley worked at the Home Depot store in South Portland, Maine. The MHRC found that Home Depot discriminated against Ms. McGinley when it terminated her employment. At the time of her termination, Ms. McGinley was an Assistant Store Manager. The details of the case are set forth in the MHRC Investigator’s report.

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