• 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

A New Jersey woman, Dr. Mary Beamer, is pursuing a lawsuit against her former employer, Herman Chiropractic Center. In her lawsuit, she claims Herman Chiropractic fired her because she was pregnant. According to a news report about the case, Dr. Beamer claims that she suffered from hyperemesis gravidarum, which is a severe form of morning sickness that can cause dehydration, and she needed to take 11 days medical leave from work because of it. Dr. Beamer claims that when she was ready to return to work after her 11-day leave, the owner of the company told her not to bother because he didn’t want her to return.

In this case, Herman Chiropractic knew that the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which entitles eligible employees to medical leave for pregnancy related health issues, did not cover it. The FMLA didn’t cover Herman Chiropractic because it did not have 50 or more employees. Thus, that law did not require it to provide Dr. Beamer with leave for her pregnancy related condition. However, the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) also protects pregnant employees. Under the PDA, an employer cannot fire an employee because she is pregnant. Dr. Beamer claims in her lawsuit that Herman Chiropractic did exactly that.

If you are pregnant and your employer has refused to let you take leave from work due to pregnancy related health issues because it claims you aren’t covered by the FMLA, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights. It is not uncommon for an employer to mistakenly tell an employee she is ineligible for FMLA leave even when she is eligible. Additionally, Maine has its own version of the FMLA, which applies to employers with fewer than 50 employees, and some employers misapply that law as well. Even if the federal FMLA or Maine’s version of the FMLA don’t cover you, you might have a claim under the PDA like Dr. Beamer.

Published on:

By

Yesterday, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, and other states, ruled that a reasonable jury could find that Aggregate Industries retaliated against a whistleblower who revealed the company’s illegal practices in connection with the “Big Dig.” The Big Dig was a massive highway project, built largely with federal funds, which transformed vehicular traffic in Boston. The whistleblower that brought the case against Aggregate blew the whistle on Aggregate’s decision to provide substandard concrete to the Big Dig.

The Court held that a reasonable jury could find that Aggregate violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) when it terminated the whistleblower’s employment. Prior to the whistleblower’s termination, he and others had filed a “qui tam” lawsuit which alleged that Aggregate supplied substandard concrete to the Big Dig. A qui tam lawsuit is a lawsuit where a private individual can sue a company that has defrauded the federal government. If the individual prevails, the federal government recoups most of the defrauded money but some of the money goes to the individual who brought the lawsuit as an incentive for whistleblowers to come forward.

Aggregate settled the qui tam lawsuit for several million dollars and then 72 hours later it fired the whistleblower. The Court found this timing suspicious and held that it constituted evidence that Aggregate retaliated against the whistleblower in violation of the FCA. Aggregate claimed that it fired the whistleblower because he refused to submit to a repeat drug test after an initial drug test allegedly came back inconclusive. The Court held that a reasonable jury could disbelieve this explanation for several reasons. For instance, Aggregate violated its own policies. When the whistleblower provided a urine sample to Aggregate, it split the sample into two specimens. The first specimen resulted in an inconclusive test. When the test allegedly came back inconclusive, Aggregate refused to test the second specimen, contrary to its own policy, and demanded that the whistleblower submit another urine sample. Aggregate claimed that it lost the second specimen but no witnesses actually verified that it was, in fact, lost. In fact, a witness for Aggregate said that standard testing procedures made it “highly unlikely” that a specimen could be lost.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In recent weeks, the press has extensively covered changes that the LePage administration has proposed to Maine’s unemployment fraud law. Opponents of the proposed changes question the need for the enhanced penalties since unemployment fraud is very rare in Maine. News reports have indicated that Maine has the fifth lowest unemployment fraud rate in the country and the lowest in New England. All of this talk of unemployment fraud has focused on these rare cases of unemployed people knowingly receiving more unemployment benefits than they are entitled to receive. However, there is little, if any, mention of the fact that employers can commit unemployment fraud, too.

Under Maine law, it is a crime for an employer “to avoid or reduce any contribution or other payment required from an employing unit under” Maine’s unemployment insurance laws. Thus, if an employer knowingly misclassifies an employee as an independent contractor, and fails to pay unemployment insurance contributions for that employee, it commits a crime.

If your employer has misclassified you as an independent contractor, and you want to blow the whistle on this illegal activity, you should first contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn about your rights.

Published on:

By

Today, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, in Boston, affirmed a judgment against a Puerto Rican hospital of nearly $2 million because it retaliated against a doctor who complained of age discrimination. The hospital terminated the doctor after he had complained that the hospital discriminated against him on the basis of his age. The Court affirmed the judgment because it found that various pieces of evidence cast doubt on the truthfulness of the hospital’s explanation for its decision to terminate the doctor. For instance, the hospital claimed that it terminated the doctor not because he had complained of age discrimination but because he had purchased an electrocardiography machine for his private practice and took business away from the hospital with it. However, the hospital had informed doctors who worked for it that they could purchase their own equipment for their private practices. Moreover, other doctors had purchased similar equipment for their private practices and the hospital did not terminate them.

This case illustrates that an employee who experiences retaliation or discrimination can prove it with circumstantial evidence. He does not necessarily need a witness to say that the employer admitted it was retaliating against or discriminating against him in order to prevail. If you believe your employer has illegally retaliated against you or discriminated against you, contact an experienced employment attorney who can tell you whether there is enough circumstantial evidence to prove that your employer violated your rights.

Published on:

By

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is sponsoring a bill that would, among other things, return roughly $11 billion to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS). According to Collins, the $11 billion is equal to the amount of money that USPS has overpaid in pension contributions. By returning this money to USPS, it could offer incentives to employees if they retired. The goal would be to reduce the USPS’ workforce by about 100,000 through these incentives.

The bill would also reform the federal workers’ compensation program. According to Collins, the bill “would bring federal benefits more in line with compensation levels offered under most states’ laws, and encourage more employees who are able to work to return to the workforce.”

Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Scott Brown (R-MA) are also sponsoring the bill.

Published on:

By

LD 1571 is a bill sponsored by Assistant House Majority Leader Andre Cushing, R-Hampden that seeks to decimate Maine’s workers’ compensation law, making it harder for injured workers to receive lost time and medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.

The bill, which will be heard by the Legislature’s Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee this spring, proposes sweeping changes to the existing workers’ compensation law, nearly all of which favor employers and insurance companies over injured workers. The proposed changes include:

• Instituting a scale of benefits based on the severity of an injury and reducing the overall number of weeks that benefits are paid to injured workers.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Today, the California Attorney General’s office settled an ongoing lawsuit against a group of car washes for more than $1,000,000. According to the California AG, the case arose because investigators found the car washes denied employees minimum wage and overtime, failed to pay wages to employees who quit or were terminated, and denied employees rest and meal breaks. Investigators also found that the car washes created false employee time records.

“Workers at these car washes were taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers who illegally denied them the pay and benefits they earned,” said California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. “The resolution of this case will allow workers to receive the pay they are owed.”

Like California, Maine has laws that entitle employees to minimum wages, overtime pay, rest breaks, and payment of unpaid wages when the employee resigns or is terminated. If you believe your employer is violating your right to any of these things, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to discuss whether you have a viable claim.

Published on:

By

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled today that corporations may not force employees to give up their right to bring class actions to enforce their rights.

In recent years, many corporations in the United States have required employees to give up their Constitutional right to use the American court system to hold them accountable when they violate their employees’ rights. Many corporations require applicants to sign these arbitration agreements before they’ll hire them and sometimes corporations will fire employees unless they sign them. Under these arbitration agreements, instead of a jury or a judge, corporations require employees to bring their claims to arbitration where, usually, one individual paid by the corporation decides the case. Some corporations have gone one step further and, through these arbitration agreements, have taken away employees’ rights to bring class actions–and that is what the NLRB’s decision forbids.

The NLRB ruled today that arbitration agreements which strip employees of their right to bring class actions violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA requires corporations to let employees engage in “concerted activity.” The NLRB decided that employees engage in concerted activity when they band together to bring a class action to vindicate the rights of them and their co-workers. Thus, under the NLRA, a corporation cannot require its employees to give up their right to bring a class action.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

James White, a former HIV+ employee of Great Expressions Dental, claims that he faced discrimination and harassment after the company learned of his disability. He alleges that, among other things, the company permitted co-workers to follow him around with Lysol, forbade him from touching doorknobs, unfairly disciplined him, and terminated his employment because of his HIV+ status. According to Mr. White’s representatives, Detroit Legal Services, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued Mr. White a letter which states that its investigation corroborated his allegations against Great Expressions Dental.

Great Expressions Dental has now taken the unusual step of suing Mr. White and his supporters over the allegations. It sued Mr. White seeking a declaratory judgment which will dismiss his case. It sued some of Mr. White’s supporters because they posted petitions online which the company claims contain false accusations. Detroit Legal Services’ President said in response to the company’s lawsuits, “we are outraged by the further, relentless discrimination and bullying toward an individual who has been traumatized more than anyone should ever be.”

It is a violation of federal and Maine state law for an employer to discriminate against or harass an employee because he has a disability such as HIV. As this case demonstrates, even if the EEOC finds in your favor, many employers will fight tooth and nail to defend themselves against allegations of discrimination and harassment. So, if you’ve experienced disability discrimination or harassment at work, you should seek the advice of an experienced employment attorney.

Published on:

By

Last year, the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta held that no jury could reasonably find that a Tyson Foods manager harbored racial animus against an African American man, John Hithon, even though he referred to Hithon as “boy.” The court’s ruling followed a 2006 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in which the high court rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s holding that the use of the term “boy” alone, without a modifier like “black,” is not evidence of race discrimination. Despite the Supreme Court’s rebuke, the Eleventh Circuit continued to hold that the manager’s use of the term “boy” did not evidence race discrimination.

Following the Eleventh Circuit’s decision last year, Hithon’s attorneys petitioned for a full or “en banc” hearing before the entire Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, instead of just the three judge panel that decided the case. A group of civil rights leaders filed a brief in support of the plaintiff, too. Bowing to this pressure, the three judge panel decided to reverse itself. On December 16, 2011, the three judge panel held that the use of the term “boy,” among other pieces of evidence, could permit a reasonable jury to find that the manager discriminated against Hithon because of his race.

Stephen B. Bright, the president of the Southern Center for Human Rights, said that this about face from the court demonstrates “how judges manipulate facts and law to make a case come out the way they want it to.” “The new opinion flatly contradicts the first one in several places,” Mr. Bright said.

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