• 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

Earlier this month the U.S. District Court of Maine found that a jury could reasonably hold Rumford Hospital liable for disability discrimination and retaliation against Catherine LaFlamme. The Maine Employee Rights Group (MERG) represents Ms. LaFlamme in this case.

Ms. LaFlamme worked for Rumford Hospital as a nurse. In July 2011 she sustained an injury to her lower back which her doctors diagnosed as a herniated disc. Ms. LaFlamme was hospitalized for a period of time due to the disc herniation and she underwent surgery. Because of the herniated disc, Ms. LaFlamme was unable to do her nursing job at Rumford Hospital and she went out on an extended medical leave.

Ms. LaFlamme remained out on medical leave for the remainder of 2011 and all of 2012. During that extended leave, she kept in touch with Rumford Hospital and communicated with them about her recovery. She wanted to return to work there when she was again capable of working. In November 2012, Ms. LaFlamme informed Rumford Hospital that she was getting close to being able to return to work. She told them that she hoped to be back in 30 – 60 days.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

A Walmart employee who has worked for Walmart in Maine and Massachusetts filed a class action lawsuit earlier this month against Walmart because the company did not provide her wife with health insurance coverage. The employee, Jackie Cote, has worked for Walmart since 1999 and she has been married to her wife Dee since 2004. Up until January 1, 2014 Walmart refused to provide Dee with health insurance benefits even though it provided health insurance benefits to spouses of employees who were married to someone of the opposite sex.

The complaint filed in court to initiate the lawsuit explains why it is important to get a ruling from the court on the illegality of Walmart’s past practice of denying health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses. The complaint explains that, while Walmart has recently extended health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses, the company disavows any legal obligation to continue providing health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses. “Benefits provided by Walmart as a matter of grace that can be eliminated at Walmart’s discretion are not secure and could potentially be withdrawn just when large health care costs are incurred,” the complaint states.

Ms. Cote is represented by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) as well as the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (Lawyers’ Committee). The attorneys at GLAD and the Lawyers’ Committee have advanced a few different legal arguments to support their claim that Walmart’s policy of excluding same-sex spouses from its health insurance coverage discriminates on the basis of sex. One of the more interesting arguments is as follows: “Walmart refused to provide spousal health insurance benefits for Jackie’s spouse because Jackie is a woman married to another woman, even though Walmart would have provided such coverage if Jackie were a man married to a woman.” In other words, the plaintiffs are arguing that Walmart engaged in sex discrimination when it excluded Jackie’s spouse from its health insurance coverage because if Jackie had been a man, Walmart would not have excluded her spouse from coverage.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This month marks the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA into law on July 26, 1990. While the ADA did not fully live up to what lawmakers intended, necessitating the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADA-AA), it has always contained important provisions that require businesses and governments to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled people. These accommodations enable people with disabilities to enjoy employment opportunities, purchase goods and services, and participate in government programs and services.

Why is it important that we accommodate people with disabilities? It is important because people with disabilities have a lot to offer to society but sometimes cannot do so unless they have the right tools. I recently saw a documentary about the famous physicist Stephen Hawking which seemed to illustrate this important concept.

Dr. Hawking has done groundbreaking work studying the origins of the universe and other issues of cosmology and physics. He may be best known as the author of the best-selling book A Brief History of Time. A Brief History of Time discusses the origins of the universe and various other issues in cosmology and theoretical physics in ways that lay people can understand. Millions of people have read A Brief History of Time and, as a result, have gained a deeper understanding of the universe.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Earlier this week, Portland’s mayor signed into law minimum wage increase for workers in Portland. The minimum wage increase will go into effect in January.

The language of the law that the mayor signed could lead to tipped workers also receiving a wage increase even though some of the city’s lawmakers did not intend to give tipped workers a wage increase. When Portland’s mayor, Michael Brennan, learned that the new law would affect tipped workers, he was caught off guard. “That’s never been part of the discussions we’ve had,” Brennan said. “It was very clear that we weren’t trying to move toward increasing the financial impact on restaurants.” Since some lawmakers, including the mayor, did not intend to require increased wages for tipped workers, the Portland City Council will be considering a fix to the newly passed law that would not raise the minimum wage for tipped workers.

Portland’s decision to increase the minimum wage has sparked conversations in other Maine cities about whether they should also increase the minimum wage in their cities. This issue is perhaps no more serious than in South Portland since it borders Portland and has a lot of businesses with minimum wage workers. South Portland City Council member Tom Blake is concerned that it might be more difficult for South Portland employers to find good employees because the best workers may decide to seek employment in Portland, where the wages are higher, instead of South Portland. South Portland’s mayor, Linda Cohen, hopes that the Greater Portland Council of Governments can address the issue with a regional wage structure that will work for the whole area.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This week the President and the Secretary of Labor announced that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) would be updating overtime regulations so that approximately 5 million more workers would be eligible for overtime pay, including a reported 20,000 workers in Maine. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a law originally passed in 1938 during the Roosevelt administration, requires employers to pay certain employees time-and-a-half for overtime work. The FLSA exempts certain employees from overtime requirements so that employers do not have to pay these exempt employees time-and-a-half for overtime.

One set of exemptions in FLSA are called the “white collar” exemptions which exempt certain salaried workers from overtime pay requirements. One rationale for exempting these workers was that they earned so much money that there was no need pay them overtime on top of their salaries. However, the salary threshold used to determine who can be classified as exempt have not been updated in decades.  Consequently, many exempt salaried workers often make less per hour than the hourly workers that they supervise. A so-called “white collar” worker can be exempt from overtime pay even if she earns as little as $23,660 per year, which is below the poverty line for a family of four. The DOL told the story of one of these workers when it announced the proposed updates to the regulations. This worker, a manager at a discount retail store, worked an average of 72 hours per week without any overtime pay and earned less than some of the hourly workers that he supervised.

The proposed rule changes would increase the $23,660 threshold to $50,440 per year. The new rule would also ensure that the threshold continues to rise so that it keeps pace with inflation or wage growth.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This week the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a criminal prosecution against a woman who took documents from her employer to support hers and her son’s employment discrimination case against their employer could proceed. This case should serve as a cautionary tale to all employees who are considering taking documents from their employer’s files to prove that the employer violated their rights.

In this case, the employee who faces criminal prosecution, Ivonne Saavedra, and her son both worked for the North Bergen Board of Education (Board). In 2009, Saavedra and her son filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the Board in which they alleged that the Board retaliated against them because Saavedra had blown the whistle on illegal activity such as pay irregularities, improper administration of employee vacation and family leave, and unsafe working conditions. During the litigation of this discrimination case, Saavedra’s attorney had to produce documents to the Board’s attorney that Saavedra had taken from the Board.  She had taken the documents from the Board because she believed they supported her discrimination case.

When the Board learned that Saavedra had taken the documents it informed the county prosecutor and the county prosecutor obtained an indictment against Saavedra for official misconduct and theft. Saavedra’s attorney tried to convince a court to dismiss the criminal charges against Saavedra. One argument that Saavedra’s attorney raised was that the New Jersey Supreme Court previously held in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. that, in certain circumstances, an employer may not retaliate against an employee because she took documents from the employer in order to support a discrimination claim against the employer. The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected this argument, in part, because the Qunilan case said nothing about whether an employee could be criminally prosecuted for taking documents—it only addressed the issue of whether an employer could retaliate against an employee who took documents from the employer in support of his or her discrimination claim.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) have co-sponsored a bill called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The bill would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees so that they could continue to work during their pregnancies. Employers have to provide similar accommodations to employees with disabilities and this law would utilize that same accommodation process for pregnant employees.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act could require, for instance, an employer to permit a pregnant worker to carry a water bottle with her so that she can drink the amount of water that her doctor recommends. Similarly, it could require an employer to let a pregnant worker who would normally stand to do her job, such as a cashier, to sit on a stool instead.

Senators Shaheen and Ayotte recognize that the Supreme Court issued a ruling earlier this year in a case where a pregnant UPS worker required an accommodation but the Senators believe that the Court’s decision left too many unanswered questions. They believe that this law will make it clear for both employers and workers that pregnant workers are entitled to reasonable accommodations.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Earlier this month, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued guidance for employers who employ transgender employees that addresses the issue of restroom access. According to the guidance, employers should permit a transgender employee to use the restroom that corresponds to his or her gender identity. For example, an employer should permit a transgender woman—a person who has a female gender identity but who was designated as male at birth—to use the female restroom.

OSHA sees this as a workplace health and safety issue. “Restricting employees to using only restrooms that are not consistent with their gender identity, or segregating them from other workers by requiring them to use gender-neutral or other specific restrooms, singles those employees out and may make them fear for their physical safety,” says the guidance. “Bathroom restrictions can result in employees avoiding using restrooms entirely while at work, which can lead to potentially serious physical injury or illness.”

“The core principle is that all employees, including transgender employees, should have access to restrooms that correspond to their gender identity,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “OSHA’s goal is to assure that employers provide a safe and healthful working environment for all employees.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By
Last month, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Missouri, held that a reasonable jury could determine that Tyson Fresh Meats violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when it fired Delbert Hudson.  The Eighth Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case. 
 
In December 2011 and January 2012, Mr. Hudson had to take some time off from work at Tyson because of depression and back pain.  Mr. Hudson’s co-worker/girlfriend initially notified his supervisor that he needed to miss work for medical reasons and Mr. Hudson also sent a text message to his supervisor.  In the midst of his medical leave, Mr. Hudson brought Tyson a note from his doctor and filled out a medical leave form.  When Mr. Hudson returned to work, after about two weeks of medical leave, Tyson fired him.
 
The FMLA requires an employer to restore an employee to his job or an equivalent job when he returns from FMLA-qualifying leave.  In this case, the Eighth Circuit determined that Mr. Hudson qualified for FMLA leave and that a reasonable jury could find that Tyson violated the FMLA because it did not permit him to return to work when his FMLA leave ended. 
Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Earlier this month, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Virginia, held that a race discrimination class action against Nucor Corporation could proceed. This decision marked the second time that this appellate court has reversed the trial judge’s decision not to let the class action proceed.

The case centers around a plant in South Carolina where workers melt, form, finish, and ship steel products to customers. The plaintiffs represent a class of black employees at that plant. Before the plaintiffs initiated legal action, the plant had 611 employees; 71 of those 611 employees were black but only one supervisor in the entire plant was black.

The plaintiffs have alleged that systemic discrimination existed at the plant that (a) worked to deprive them of equal opportunities for promotions and (b) led to a hostile work environment. The trial judge decided to let the hostile work environment claim go forward as a class action but had refused to permit the promotion claim to go forward. The Fourth Circuit considered the statistical evidence that the plaintiffs presented as well as anecdotal evidence of discrimination against black workers at the plant. The Fourth Circuit held that this anecdotal evidence not only supported the hostile work environment claim but also supported the promotions claim. Some of this anecdotal evidence was as follows:

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