• 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

Currently, in Maine, it is legal for an employer to refuse to hire an applicant because she is unemployed. A bill which recently passed the Maine House would change that.

Discrimination against someone because he is unemployed strikes many as unfair particularly because so many people become unemployed due to circumstances beyond their control. “The best program we can provide people with is a good job,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Diane Russell, D-Portland. “This bill would help eliminate the barriers and uphill battles workers face in trying to re-enter the workforce after being laid off, ensuring they have a fair chance at a new job.”

The New York City Council recently enacted a similar law, over the veto of Mayor Bloomberg, that we reported on in January.

Published on:

By

Thumbnail image for Breastfeeding.jpgYesterday, a bill that would provide further protections for mothers who need to nurse or express breast milk in the workplace passed the Maine House. Maine law currently requires employers to provide accommodations to employees who need to nurse or express breast milk but the penalties for failing to obey this law are very slight. Under the current law, employers face at most a $500 fine and there is nothing in the law that requires an employer to rehire an employee who was fired for expressing breast milk at work.

The bill currently under debate would amend the Maine Human Rights Act so that it would require employers to accommodate nursing mothers in the workplace. If an employer failed to accommodate a nursing mother, it could be held liable for damages it caused to the nursing mother and potentially punitive damages.

“Maine has a rich history of leading the nation on important civil rights protections, but nursing mothers have fallen through the cracks,” said Rep. Anne Graham, D-North Yarmouth, the bill’s sponsor. “Working mothers deserve full equality in the workplace.”

Published on:

By

The gay rights advocacy group Freedom to Work recently filed a lawsuit in Illinois against Exxon Mobil for discrimination against a gay applicant. Freedom to Work filed the lawsuit after it conducted a test to determine whether Exxon would discriminate against a gay applicant. In connection with this test, Freedom to Work sent test resumes to Exxon in response to a job posting for an administrative position. The two test resumes were designed so that Freedom to Work could gauge whether Exxon would treat a lesbian applicant differently than a straight applicant.

The test resume of the lesbian applicant implicitly indicated that she was a lesbian because it described her significant involvement in a LGBT rights organization. A comparison between the lesbian applicant’s resume and the straight applicant’s resume showed that the lesbian applicant was clearly better qualified for the position than the straight applicant. Despite this disparity in qualifications, Exxon actively pursued the straight applicant to invite her for an interview but, even when the straight applicant failed to respond to repeated contacts from Exxon, it never invited the better-qualified lesbian applicant for an interview.

Freedom to Work engaged in this testing and filed its lawsuit after Exxon again refused to adopt prohibitions against sexual orientation discrimination in its official equal employment opportunity statement. “Exxon Mobil says it doesn’t discriminate. If so, all they have to do is adopt the same nondiscrimination policy that other companies have and we’ll settle the case,” said president of Freedom to Work, Tico Almeida. “I hope they don’t decide to waste shareholder money by fighting it.”

Published on:

By

In recent weeks, a Maine-based trailer manufacturer, ALCOM, and Maine’s largest medical marijuana company, Wellness Connection of Maine (WCM), have reportedly faced accusations that they retaliated against employees who tried to organize labor unions. Complaints have been filed against both employers with the National Labor Relations Board. The complaints allege, among other things, that the employers fired employees because they tried to organize unions.

With respect to ALCOM, a group of employees began to meet earlier this month to discuss organizing a union. Shortly afterwards, ALCOM fired four employees who attended those meetings as well as a fifth employee who supported the formation of a union. “This is a clear example of an employer firing people for union activity and trying to create a climate of fear in the workplace when workers are trying to organize,” said Matt Schlobohm, executive director of the Maine AFL-CIO. ALCOM, of course, denies any wrongdoing.

With respect to WCM, the alleged retaliation arose on the heels of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) citing the company for 20 state code violations. DHHS discovered the code violations when it conducted a surprise inspection after it received information from a whistleblower who worked for WCM. In a statement issued by the Maine AFL-CIO, one of the workers who claims that WCM retaliated against her for union organizing activities, Barbara Heap, said “for months me and my co-workers were forced to break the law as a practice of business at WCM. When we took a stand and joined together to address our health and safety concerns, we were intimidated and retaliated against.” WCM, like ALCOM, denies any wrongdoing.

Published on:

By

This week, the New England Patriots cut defensive lineman Kyle Love. According to Love’s agent, Richard Kopelman, the Patriots made this decision shortly after Love was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. Due to the timing of the Patriots’ decision, many have questioned whether Love’s disability factored into the Patriots’ decision. Kopelman said that Love had lost weight prior to his diagnosis but after he changed his diet he regained most of the weight.

“Having consulted with leading authorities on the effects of Type 2 diabetes, we have every reason to believe that Kyle will, in the immediate future, be at 100 percent, and will be prepared to participate in training camp in a couple of months,” Kopelman said. “As Kyle said, ‘there is no way something like this is going to stand between me and a long and successful NFL career.'”

It is illegal under federal and Maine law (although, Maine law doesn’t apply to Love) for an employer to discriminate against an employee or applicant because he has a disability. Defying what many think to be common sense, some courts used to be reluctant to find that Type 2 diabetes and many other types of medical conditions constituted disabilities. In 2007, Maine amended its disability discrimination law and, in 2008, the federal government amended its law so that now both laws are much more protective of employees and applicants with diabetes as well as other types of medical conditions. Indeed, under Maine law, diabetes is on a list of conditions that are part of the definition of disability.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In July 2012, we reported that a class of African American plaintiffs had sued the retailer Wet Seal for race discrimination. In support of their claims, the plaintiffs obtained emails that contained powerful evidence of race discrimination. Wet Seal and the plaintiffs recently settled this case. As a result of the settlement, Wet Seal will, among other things, pay $7.5 million, change its policies to increase the racial diversity of its employees, and expand its human resources department so that it can better investigate discrimination complaints.

“With this settlement, Wet Seal is attempting to right its wrongs,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “The fight for equality in the workplace is far from over in America.”

Published on:

By

An investigator with the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has reportedly found that the town of Old Orchard Beach retaliated against an office manager, Kelly Roy, because she blew the whistle on allegedly unlawful financial activity. After she blew the whistle, Old Orchard Beach reduced her hours, took away her cell phone stipend, and forced her to punch a time clock even though her co-workers were not required to do the same.

The MHRC will vote on whether to accept the investigator’s finding at its next meeting in May. If the MHRC votes in favor of Roy, the MHRC will attempt to help Roy and Old Orchard Beach reach a settlement of Roy’s claims so that both parties can avoid a lawsuit. At these junctures in the MHRC process, complainants, like Roy, often look for a lawyer to both represent them before the MHRC and to help negotiate a settlement of their claims. Without good legal advice, unrepresented complainants often do not know how much money and/or other relief they should accept to settle their claims. Many employers also usually do not offer as much money and/or other relief to unrepresented complainants because they are not as concerned that an unrepresented complainant will file a successful lawsuit against it if the case does not settle.

Published on:

By

Records from the Maine Department of Corrections (Maine DOC) reportedly show that Maine DOC disciplined eight officers at the Maine State Prison this year for making ethnic slurs against another officer. Maine DOC also reportedly disciplined a supervisor who failed to take corrective action when he became aware of the ethnic slurs. Despite these disciplinary actions, the officer targeted by this harassment could still potentially seek compensation for any damages he or she suffered as a result of the harassment because the supervisor failed to take prompt corrective action. Furthermore, if the officer targeted by the harassment experiences any retaliation, such as retaliatory harassment, because of his or her complaint about the ethnic slurs, he or she could also seek compensation for damages caused by that retaliation.

Published on:

By

A case in New York City illustrates one reason why it is important to retain an experienced attorney to represent you if you have to file a lawsuit against an employer who has violated your rights. In this case, a former attorney named Alexandra Marchuk sued her former firm, Faruqi & Faruqi, for sexual harassment. Ms. Marchuk claims that a senior partner in the firm, Juan Monteverde, made unwanted sexual advances toward her and also once forcibly had sex with her in the firm’s offices. The firm, in response, sued Ms. Marchuk for defamation. In its lawsuit against Ms. Marchuk, Faruqi & Faruqi claims that she has made false accusations in her lawsuit that have damaged the firm’s reputation.

This is an example of an employer “playing hardball.” If Ms. Marchuk did not have competent counsel to represent her, she could not only lose her case but also be required to pay for damages that Faruqi & Faruqi incurred as a result of her lawsuit. It is unclear how Ms. Marchuk’s attorney will respond to Faruqi & Faruqi’s lawsuit against her but one option is to file another lawsuit against Faruqi & Faruqi for retaliation. It is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against a current or former employee because she has complained of sexual harassment. Faruqi & Faruqi’s lawsuit could be a form of retaliation and, in fact, a retaliation claim in Ms. Marchuk’s case may be easier for her to win than her underlying sexual harassment case.

If your employer has violated your rights, don’t try to go it alone. Contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights and your options.

Published on:

By

The Maine Employment Lawyers Association (MELA), an organization of lawyers who represent workers in Maine, plans to ask the Maine Attorney General to investigate allegations that Governor LePage pressured unemployment hearing officers to more often find in favor of businesses and against workers. The request for an investigation stems from a meeting that Governor LePage personally had with some of the hearing officers in which he allegedly told them that he believed they too often found in favor of workers and against businesses. If these allegations are true, the meeting likely constitutes improper political influence over a process that is supposed to be free of politics.

Unemployment hearing officers make decisions about whether a worker should receive unemployment insurance benefits. Unemployment insurance benefits are critically important to unemployed persons because they provide the unemployed with a small amount of money to live on while they attempt to find another job. Unemployment insurance benefits also play an indirect but important role in ensuring that unscrupulous employers are held accountable for violating employees’ rights. Workers who are fired for illegal reasons often face a long arduous process as they attempt to vindicate their rights. If they do not have any money to live on while they attempt to find another job, they will often be tempted, out of desperation, to settle their claims for a relatively small sum of money. This, in essence, permits the employer to get away with violating the worker’s rights.

For all of these reasons, it is critical that unemployment hearing officers decide cases in a fair, unbiased manner and allegations that the Governor has undermined the process should be taken very seriously.

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