• 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

Today, the Maine Legislature’s Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee voted down so-called “right to work” bills that would hamper unions’ ability to advocate for Maine workers. The bills would permit employees, both public and private, to reap the benefits that unions obtain for them without requiring them to pay dues that are necessary for the unions to operate. Governor LePage and some Republicans in the Maine Legislature have championed these bills arguing that they would make Maine more business friendly.

Mike Williams, a firefighter from South Portland who was in Augusta for a news conference regarding these bills, reportedly said right-to-work legislation “will make it harder for firefighters like myself, nurses, snowplow drivers, corrections officers and other hardworking public employees to establish safe working conditions for themselves and safe communities for all of us. Putting hard-working public service workers at risk will make it harder to find and keep the best people for these jobs. The fact is this governor was elected to work on creating jobs but instead he’s attacking working people.”

Although unions have had success in improving the working conditions of employees, union membership is at all-time low levels. In 2012, the percentage of American workers that belonged to a union was just 11.3%. These so-called “right to work” laws would further weaken unions and further inhibit workers’ ability to collectively bargain for better working conditions.

Published on:

By

On March 22, 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Mohegan Council of the Boy Scouts of America’s appeal that it filed following a trial in which a jury found that it discriminated against a former employee on the basis of his religion and national origin. The former employee, Kamal Aly, is an Egyptian-American Muslim who worked for the Boy Scouts as a District Executive. The jury found that the Boy Scouts denied Mr. Aly the ability to advance to the position of Senior Executive Director because of his religion and national origin.

According to Mr. Aly, the Boy Scouts failed to send him for training that he needed in order to obtain a promotion to the position of Senior Executive Director. The Boy Scouts claimed that it did not send Mr. Aly for this training because of issues with his job performance. However, Mr. Aly’s performance reviews were relatively good. The Boy Scouts also claimed that it did not send Mr. Aly for training because of complaints it had received from some volunteers. However, Mr. Aly had previously reported to his supervisor that these volunteers were discriminating against him because he was Muslim. The volunteers’ discriminatory treatment came on the heels of Mr. Aly’s efforts to recruit new Boy Scout members and volunteers at local area mosques. The Boy Scouts never investigated Mr. Aly’s complaint of discriminatory treatment. The Boy Scouts also claimed that it did not send Mr. Aly for training because of budgetary constraints but this reason did not seem plausible because Mr. Aly offered to pay for the training himself and forgo a pay raise when he returned. Also, the Boy Scouts sent someone else for the training that Mr. Aly requested despite its supposed budgetary constraints.

Since the Boy Scouts’ explanations for its actions could be seen as excuses that lacked credibility, the First Circuit held that the jury acted reasonably when it inferred that discrimination motivated the Boy Scouts’ decision to deny Mr. Aly career advancement opportunities. This is a rather common way for employees to prove that their employer’s discriminated against them. Employers rarely admit that they discriminated against an employee. Instead, they offer untrue excuses to cover up or rationalize their discrimination. Experienced employment lawyers are good at proving these excuses are just a “smoke screen” for discrimination.

Published on:

By

The Maine legislature is currently considering a bill that would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women so that they can continue to perform their jobs despite medical restrictions due to pregnancy. Under current law, employers cannot discriminate against pregnant women because they are pregnant. But if, for instance, a pregnant woman’s doctor gives her a lifting restriction while she is pregnant, an employer does not have to accommodate that restriction unless it provides accommodations to non-pregnant employees under similar circumstances. This new law would require Maine employers to accommodate pregnant workers in the same way they have to accommodate workers with disabilities.

California already requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women. State legislatures in Maryland and Iowa are also currently considering bills similar to the one in Maine that would require employers to reasonably accommodate pregnant women. Maine’s bill, LD 830, is currently assigned to the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate.

Published on:

By

Thumbnail image for USCurrency_Federal_Reserve.jpgRep. Scott Hamann, D-South Portland, has introduced a bill that would raise the minimum wage in Maine from $7.50/hr to $8.50/hr. The bill would also require the minimum wage to rise on an annual basis at the same rate as inflation. Maine’s AFL-CIO as well as other unions favor the bill while the Maine Chamber of Commerce opposes it.

“If we put money in the hands of the people most likely to spend it and most likely to spend it locally, this drives up consumption in Maine’s economy,” Hamann said. “If we increase consumption and demand for goods and services, businesses will hire more to keep up with demand, which is a net win for the state of Maine.”

“Our economy just doesn’t support that kind of wage an hour increase,” said Peter Gore of the Maine Chamber of Commerce. “From an economic standpoint, raising it by a dollar and indexing it annually, putting that element on automatic pilot, that’s just a bad idea.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Yesterday, the House and Senate Veterans’ affairs committees held a hearing regarding the problem of employment discrimination against National Guard and military Reserve members. The President of the National Guard Association of the United States, Ret. Army Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett, told the members of the committees that he believes employers routinely decide not to hire members of the National Guard and military Reservists, in violation of federal law. He said that employers “find subtle ways to avoid hiring a serving member of the Guard or Reserve in order to avoid disruptions to the workplace from deployment-related absences.” The unemployment rate for National Guard and Reserve members is reportedly 20%, twice as high as the rate for post 9/11 veterans who have left military service.

Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), employers may not discriminate against members of the National Guard or military Reserve units. Employers must permit these servicemembers to take leave from work to undergo training and go on military deployments. If you are in the National Guard or Reserves, and your employer is discriminating against you or not permitting you to take leave for training or a deployment, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

Published on:

By

In many states around the country, state legislators are discussing and debating whether to enact laws that prohibit workplace bullying. These laws would, for instance, make it illegal for an employer to sit on its hands and do nothing if an employee physically assaulted a co-worker. Laws against workplace bullying have been introduced in the legislatures in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. In the recent past, a legislator floated the idea in Maine as well.

Many people would be surprised to know that a lot of workplace bullying is not already illegal. Under current law, unless someone bullies you at work for an unlawful reason, such as because of your sex, race, religion, age, or disability, there is no law that requires your employer to do anything about it. So, if you are experiencing workplace bullying and your employer is not doing anything to stop the bullying, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to determine whether you have any legal rights.

Published on:

By

Nebraska is the latest state to debate a bill that would prohibit employers from discriminating against applicants on the basis of their credit history. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont already have similar bans on employers using credit histories during the hiring process except with respect to certain types of jobs, like if state or federal law requires the employee to be bonded. Maine does not have such a law.

The Nebraskan legislator supporting this latest bill, Sen. Annette Dubas, noted that “there are many occurrences in our lives that are out of our control but can have an impact on our credit score.” Dubas maintains that “there is little correlation between credit history and job performance or the likelihood of committing fraud.” Indeed, applicants who are unknowing victims of identity theft–which is at record levels–could be hurt during a hiring process out of no fault of their own.

Published on:

By

medicine symbol.pngThe American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) of Maine has sued Adecco on behalf of a woman from Pittsfield named Brittany Thomas. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Thomas applied for a job with Adecco and failed its drug test because she uses medicinal marijuana. Although just 24 years old, Ms. Thomas suffers from grade 2 spondylosis, the beginning stages of arthritis, two bulging disks, a herniated disk, an annular tear, and a pinched nerve root. She was prescribed marijuana for the pain associated with these back problems.

“No patient should be forced to choose between the pain relief she needs to live a normal life and the employment she needs to support her family,” said Zachary Heiden, legal director for the ACLU of Maine. “And no employer should be forcing itself into the middle of a decision best made by a patient and her doctor.”

Published on:

By

Yesterday, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (“CMS”) in favor of a former employee who alleged that CMS unlawfully retaliated against her. The former employee, Katherine Kelley, began working as a nurse for CMS at the Maine State Prison in the spring of 2007. In July, 2007, Kelley shattered her pelvis during a horseback riding accident. After she recovered from her shattered pelvis, Kelley was limited in her ability to walk, among other things. Due to these limitations, she requested various accommodations so that she could perform her job at the prison. Her supervisor, Theresa Kesteloot, repeatedly expressed hostility towards Kelley because of the accommodations she requested. Ultimately, Kesteloot fired Kelley after she became frustrated with Kelley’s requests for accommodations.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Maine Human Rights Act, an employer may not retaliate against an employee who requests an accommodation for a disability. The First Circuit held that a jury could reasonably find that Kesteloot engaged in this type of retaliation when she fired Kelley.

Published on:

By

The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, which, in addition to Maine and other New England states, has jurisdiction over Puerto Rico, ruled today that a reasonable jury could determine that the University of Puerto Rico unlawfully subjected a former employee to sexual harassment. The former employee, Dr. Melissa Gerald, alleged that her supervisor, Dr. Edmundo Kraiselburd, sexually harassed her.

Gerald and Kraiselburd engaged in a week-long sexual affair in 2005 which Gerald ended soon after it began. According to Gerald, Kraiselburd tried to pursue another sexual relationship with her years later and, when she continued to rebuff him, he acted vindictively toward her. Some of his harassment included: grabbing her breasts; sexually propositioning her; and crassly asking in front of co-workers why she would not have sex with him. Gerald also maintains that Kraiselburd used his authority to demote her because she refused to have sex with him. The University argued that it demoted Gerald because of poor performance but Gerald presented documentary evidence to prove that she was performing well right up until the point when she rebuffed Kraiselburd’s sexual advances.

Despite this evidence, the trial court in Puerto Rico found that no reasonable person could believe that Gerald suffered sexual harassment that was severe enough to adversely affect her employment. While this may seem outrageous, it is not uncommon for trial courts to overstep their authority and prevent juries from deciding whether an employer broke the law. In this case, the First Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision and sent the case back to Puerto Rico for a trial.

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