• 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 First Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appeals court that covers Maine and other New England states, held that a class action against the Caritas Christi hospital network could go forward. The plaintiffs in the case allege that Caritas failed to pay them, and employees like them, for work performed during meal breaks, for work performed before and after shifts, and for time spent at training sessions.

Caritas successfully persuaded the trial judge to dismiss the lawsuit because it argued that the complaint the plaintiffs filed was not detailed enough. The First Circuit rejected this argument recognizing that in this case, like most employment cases, the employer likely possessed information that the plaintiffs will need to prove their case. The court also recognized that it is sometimes difficult for plaintiffs to predict what facts a judge will find essential to a valid complaint. So, the court advised the trial judge, when the case comes back before him, to provide the plaintiffs an explanation of what information must be added to the complaint.

This case is an example of a growing trend. Employers have increasingly tried to get cases against them thrown out on technicalities rather than fighting them on the merits. If you have an employment case, you should seek representation from an experienced employment lawyer who is familiar with these tactics and has experience fighting them.

Published on:

By

Yesterday, the Maine Senate joined the House to approve a controversial measure that overhauls the state’s workers’ compensation system, with major impacts on injured workers. The overhaul comes at a time when insurance rates for Maine businesses are down and MEMIC, the state’s largest workers’ compensation insurer, recently paid a substantial dividend. The vote was 19-16: strict party-line.

The main elements of the program overhaul include:

• Altered eligibility requirements and the creation of a 10-year cap on benefits for employees who are permanently impaired with partial incapacity.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Last week, voters in Anchorage, Alaska voted against a law that would have prohibited employment discrimination against employees because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Notably, both of Alaska’s U.S. Senators supported the law against discrimination. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said of the law, “I think this is overdue and we make sure that within this community that there’s no discrimination and there’s [no] tolerance for any discrimination at all.”

Maine and other states have had laws that prohibit this type of discrimination on the books for years but there are still some parts of the country that do not. Indeed, a majority of states do not have laws that prohibit employment discrimination against GLBT employees. This is one reason why opponents of employment discrimination have supported a bill in Congress, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would illegalize discrimination against GLBT employees.

Published on:

By

On April 5, the United States District Court in Bangor rejected the University of Phoenix’s attempt to force a former employee to bring his case against it before a private arbitrator, instead of in court. The University of Phoenix based its argument on a provision in the employee handbook that it required employees sign as a condition of their employment. The provision stated that employees had to bring any claims against the University of Phoenix before a private arbitrator instead of filing them in court. However, the employee handbook also contained a provision which said that the University of Phoenix could change the terms of the handbook any time it wanted. The handbook also did not require the University of Phoenix to even notify employees before it made any changes to it.

The court refused to enforce the arbitration provision in the employee handbook. In order for an arbitration agreement in an employee handbook to be enforceable, it has to contain obligations for both the employee and the employer. In this case, since the University of Phoenix could change the terms of its employee handbook any time it wanted, it could avoid any obligations that the handbook required of it. When an employer reserves the right to change its employee handbook any time it wants and also does not even give employees a chance to decide whether they want to continue to work for it after it makes a change, the arbitration provision in the handbook is unenforceable.

The University of Phoenix is one of many employers who have decided to force employees to give up their Constitutional right to bring a case against it in court if it violates their rights. Employers prefer arbitration for many reasons such as the fact that they are private, outside of public view; employees have less opportunity to gather evidence against the employer in arbitration; and employers prefer to defend claims before arbitrators who they pay and who may depend on the employers for repeat business.

Published on:

By

Today, the U.S. District Court of Maine ruled on three motions to dismiss which Alutiiq, LLC and two related companies (collectively Alutiiq) filed in response to retaliation claims that two whistleblowers filed against it. The whistleblowers, Craig Manfield and Janice Hendricks, who are represented by the Maine Employee Rights Group, have alleged that Alutiiq retaliated against them because they opposed the company’s unlawful actions. Manfield and Hendricks both worked for Alutiiq at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY) which contracted with Alutiiq to provide security services.

Manfield alleges, among other things, that Alutiiq fired him because he opposed its decision to shortchange the Navy by equipping its security officers with ammunition and equipment that did not comply with its contract with the Navy. For instance, Alutiiq equipped employees with frangible ammunition which is less lethal than the ball ammunition the contract required. As a consequence, Alutiiq provided less security for PNSY than the Navy paid it to provide. Manfield also alleges that Alutiiq terminated him because he opposed the company’s decision to shortchange its own employees by failing to pay them all of the wages they earned.

Alutiiq argued to the Court that it could legally retaliate against Manfield for opposing these illegal activities. The Court rejected Alutiiq’s argument with respect to his opposition to the company’s decision to shortchange the Navy. It held that if Manfield’s allegations are true, Alutiiq would have violated the anti-retaliation provisions of the federal False Claims Act (FCA).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Under a Maine statute, employers may pay certain disabled employees less than minimum wage if they receive authorization from the Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). Maine recently amended this statute. Among other things, the amended statute now only requires employers to seek reauthorization to pay a disabled employee subminimum wage every two years instead of every year.

This statute is similar to a federal statute that has come under fire from disability rights advocates, members of Congress, and legal scholars because it is blatantly discriminatory against individuals with disabilities. Under the Maine Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers may not discriminate against employees with disabilities. It certainly constitutes discrimination to pay disabled employees less because they are disabled. However, that is exactly the conduct that these subminimum wage laws sanction.

If you think these subminimum wage laws should be abolished, you should contact your state and federal representatives.

Published on:

By

A class of former interns that worked for the Charlie Rose Show, a TV show that appears on PBS, have filed a class action lawsuit against Charlie Rose and the company that produces his show. The interns allege that their internships involved work that employees, not interns, are supposed to perform. In return for their work, they received no pay.

It is clearly illegal not to pay employees wages since there are federal and state minimum wage laws. There is an exception to the minimum wage requirements for interns but that exception is narrow. In order for an employer to avoid an obligation to pay interns, several criteria must be met. Those criteria, under federal law, are as follows:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In recent weeks, state legislatures in Wisconsin and Missouri have sought to make it more difficult for victims of employment discrimination to hold the perpetrators of the discrimination accountable.

In Wisconsin, the State Assembly decided to eliminate the right of victims of employment discrimination to seek compensation under state law for non-economic damages, like the stress one experiences due to financial hardship when his employer fires him for a discriminatory reason. The Wisconsin State Assembly also eliminated the ability of juries to assess punitive damages against employers who discriminate against their employees. The only monetary remedy the Wisconsin State Assembly left intact was compensation for lost wages, benefits, and attorney fees. Under this new law, employers could engage in some types of discrimination without facing any monetary loss at all. For instance, under this new law, employers will not have to pay monetary damages if they subject employees to sexual harassment.

In Missouri, the State Senate voted to make the burden of proof more difficult on victims of employment discrimination. Employment discrimination lawsuit are already incredibly difficult for employees to win. According to a study of cases in federal court, from 1979 through 2006, plaintiffs won 15% of job-discrimination cases. By comparison, in all other civil cases, the win rate was 51%. This new law in Missouri will only make it more difficult for victims of employment discrimination to hold their employers accountable.

Published on:

By

Today, the Connecticut Department of Labor (CDOL) announced that in January and February, 2012, it issued “Stop Work orders” to 19 companies working on construction projects in Connecticut. One of these companies was Deanes, Inc., a Maine based company that was working on a rest stop on I-95 in Milford, Connecticut. “Stop Work orders,” according to CDOL, “are levied against companies that misclassify workers as independent contractors with the intent of avoiding their obligations under federal and state employment laws covering such matters as workers’ compensation, unemployment taxes and payroll reporting.”

CDOL has collected $250,000 in civil penalties as a result of the Stop Work orders it issued between January 26 and February 23, 2012.

If you believe that your employer has misclassified you as an independent contractor, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn about your rights. By misclassifying you as an independent contractor, your employer may be depriving you of wages by not paying you overtime; or it may be putting your livelihood at risk by not providing you with workers compensation insurance coverage.

Published on:

By

Today, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing the decision of the trial court, held that a class of black stockbrokers who work, or used to work, for Merrill Lynch could continue to pursue their race discrimination case against Merrill Lynch as a class action. The black stockbrokers allege that Merrill Lynch’s policies and procedures (1) for assigning stockbrokers to teams and (2) for distributing the accounts of stockbrokers who leave Merrill Lynch both have an unlawful disparate impact on them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). The Seventh Circuit held that Merrill Lynch’s policy of allowing stockbrokers, instead of supervisors, to select who to include on their teams could violate Title VII if the policy disadvantages the black stockbrokers at a statistically significant rate and the policy is not justified by “business necessity.” Likewise, it held that Merrill Lynch’s policy and procedure for assigning stockbrokers to teams could adversely affect black stockbrokers’ chances of receiving the accounts of stockbrokers who leave the firm.

The Court noted that this is a “disparate impact” case, which means that the black stockbrokers do not have to prove that Merrill Lynch intentionally discriminated against them because of their race. Instead, they only have to prove that the policies and procedures they’ve challenged adversely affect them at a statistically significant rate. If they meet this burden of proof, they will prevail unless Merrill Lynch can prove that the challenged policies and procedures are justified by business necessity. The Court believed that these issues could be resolved in one case, by one court, on a class-wide basis.

The Court’s decision permits the black stockbrokers’ case to go forward as a class action. Thus, if Merrill Lynch does not now settle the case with the black stockbrokers, the trial court will determine if the challenged policies and procedures adversely affected the black stockbrokers at a statistically significant rate and, if so, whether they are justified by business necessity.

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