• 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

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) has found that Robert Mulligan, the state’s chief justice for administration and management, refused to promote Jane McSweeney to the position of operations and maintenance supervisor with the Plymouth District Court because of her sex. MCAD believed that Mulligan made the decision based on stereotypes about female managers. A three-member hiring panel for the state’s trial court system determined that McSweeney was the top candidate for the job. Mulligan rejected that determination and, instead, hired a man who was third on the hiring panel’s list. MCAD awarded McSweeney $206,527.36 to compensate her for damages she suffered due to Mulligan’s discrimination.

It is not uncommon for women to run into “glass ceilings” when they attempt to gain promotions. If you are a woman and you believe you have run into a glass ceiling at work due to your sex, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to discuss your rights.

Published on:

By

The Maine Employee Rights Group is currently representing two whistleblowers in a lawsuit against Alutiiq, LLC and some related companies (collectively referred to here as Alutiiq). Alutiiq entered into a contract with the Navy and began to provide security services at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (PNSY) in 2009. Shortly after, Alutiiq employees Craig Manfield and Janice Hendricks, the two whistleblowers who have brought this lawsuit, began to oppose Alutiiq’s unlawful activity.

Among other things, Mr. Manfield opposed Alutiiq’s attempts to bring firearms and ammunition onto PNSY grounds without proper authorization. He later complained about the fact that Alutiiq armed security guards with ammunition that was not as lethal as the Navy contract required. He also complained about shoddy gear which negatively impacted the safety of him and his co-workers.

Ms. Hendricks, among other things, opposed Alutiiq’s failure to pay employees for overtime they worked. Ms. Hendricks, a gay woman, also experienced discrimination because of her sex and/or sexual orientation. She reported this discrimination to the company as well.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Maine Employee Rights Group is currently representing a whistleblower in a lawsuit against Praxair, Inc., one of its subsidiaries, and a company it acquired named Sermatech International. The whistleblower, Roger Lehoux, worked for Sermatech in Biddeford before Praxair acquired it.

While employed at Sermatech, Mr. Lehoux worked on the airplane parts that the company manufactured. His job was plasma sprayer. Mr. Lehoux repeatedly complained about management cutting corners to increase production at the expense of safety. For instance, he opposed the practice of cutting pieces off of blasting cabinets to increase production. Silica dust leaked out of the blasting cabinets because these pieces were cut off of them. Employees had to inhale this dust and it also collected on the airplane parts. Due to the dust, the anti-corrosive paint did not properly adhere to the parts. Through its corner cutting, the company put employee health in danger, violated OSHA regulations, and violated FAA regulations.

The lawsuit alleges that Sermatech fired Mr. Lehoux because of his repeated complaints about the company’s unlawful and unsafe practices. Sermatech claimed that it “laid off” Mr. Lehoux due to lack of work. This alleged layoff resulted in one person losing his job–Mr. Lehoux. The “layoff” occurred less than 2 weeks after Mr. Lehoux spoke up about his safety concerns during a training session held to address the fact that some airplane parts were failing inspection and being sent back to the company. Sermatech’s claim that there was a lack of work was not true. At the time of his “layoff” there was a back log of work in Mr. Lehoux’s department and employees from other areas in the facility had to come in to help out because of the back log.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On July 27, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over most New England states, including Maine, issued a decision in Haggins v. Verizon New England, Inc. This case involves a challenge to Verizon’s use of cell phones with GPS tracking capability to track its field technicians. The company used GPS, in part, because it did not trust that its employees were always where they were supposed to be. The field technicians, who were represented by a union, claimed that Verizon violated their privacy rights when it tracked them with GPS. The First Circuit dismissed the technicians’ lawsuit under a federal law that prohibits these types of lawsuits in certain circumstances when the employees have a collective bargaining agreement with the employer.

Employees, particularly in the private sector, are often surprised to learn that they have very few privacy rights in the workplace. If you believe that your employer has violated your privacy rights, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

Published on:

By

The City of New Haven, Connecticut and the group of white and Hispanic firefighters who brought a reverse race discrimination lawsuit against it have reached a settlement. The firefighters sued New Haven because the city refused to certify the results of a promotional exam in 2004 due to its fear that the exam unlawfully screened out African Americans.

This case was made famous during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals when it ruled against the white and Hispanic firefighters. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overruled the Second Circuit and handed victory to the firefighters.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the firefighters will receive $2 million and 3 years of pension credit. Their attorneys will receive $3 million to pay for their fees and expenses. Federal and state employment discrimination laws require employers who unlawfully discriminate to pay their victims’ attorneys’ fees. This is an important characteristic of these laws. If employers who discriminate did not have to pay their victims’ attorneys’ fees, many victims with meritorious cases would not bring their cases because of the costs associated with them–and discrimination would go unchecked.

Published on:

By

On July 26, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public hearing that addresses the issue of “Arrest and Conviction Records as a Barrier to Employment.” Dating back to the 1980s and early 1990s, the EEOC (which is a federal agency that enforces employment discrimination laws) has warned employers about screening applicants based on arrest and conviction records. It is well-known that law enforcement authorities and courts disproportionately arrest and convict racial minorities. Regardless of whether these arrests and convictions are legitimate, it is unlawful under the Civil Rights Act for employers to use policies that screen out racial minority applicants at a far greater rate than white applicants unless (a) it can demonstrate that it has a valid business justification to use the records to screen applicants and (b) there is not a less discriminatory way to meet the business need that justifies the use of the records. Thus, if an employer uses arrest or conviction records to screen applicants, it may violate the law unless it complies with these conditions. The EEOC’s hearing will address this issue again and that could lead to further guidance for employers on this issue.

Published on:

By

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck a major blow to a class action sex discrimination lawsuit brought against Wal-Mart when it decided that the case could not continue as a class action. This was the largest class action employment discrimination case in history. Experts have now begun debating the likely effects that this case will have on class action employment discrimination lawsuits in the future. Interestingly, some experts seem to believe that the case will result in more class action lawsuits because the case will require employees to band together into smaller groups–and bring separate class action lawsuits. That is exactly what the lawyers for the women of Wal-Mart are contemplating. Some also think that large employers will attempt to mimic Wal-Mart’s policy of giving store managers almost unbridled discretion to make personnel decisions in order to insulate the company from a large company-wide class action lawsuit.

If you are a current or former female employee of Wal-Mart from Maine, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to determine if this case affects your rights.

Published on:

By

Manske v. UPS Cartage Services Inc.

Chief Judge John A. Woodcock of the United States District Court of Maine in Bangor recently ruled in favor of whistleblower plaintiff Dennis Manske, by upholding Magistrate Judge John Rich’s decision to allow Mr. Manske and his counsel to delay production of certain audio recordings, made by him of conversations he had with his supervisors, until after Mr. Manske’s attorneys has an opportunity to question those supervisors about their conduct in deposition.

Mr. Manske, who is represented by Maine Employee Rights Group (“MERG”) filed suit in U.S. District Court against his former employer UPS Cartage Services, Inc. on July 30, 2010. In his complaint, Mr. Manske alleges that his managers extended his probationary period and forestalled his union rights in July 2008 and then terminated his employment in August 2008 after Mr. Manske repeatedly wrote up mechanical and safety issues with the trucks he was being asked to drive. Mr. Manske alleges that the extension of his probation and termination if his employment were in retaliation for his reports about the mechanical and safety issues with his trucks and that this retaliation violates the federal Surface Transportation Assistant Act (“STAA”) and well as the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“MWPA”) and the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Maine Human Rights Commission et al. v. Coffee Couple LLC et al.

U.S. District for the District Court of Maine Chief Judge John A. Woodcock recently affirmed Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk’s decision recommending that judgment be entered against the company, Coffee Couple LLC, as well as against the owners of Coffee Couple, Karen and Calvin Boyle of Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada in connection with their discrimination against a number of Maine employees.

The Maine Human Rights Commission (“MHRC”) Maine Employee Rights Group (“MERG”), and Disability Rights Center (“DRC”), brought suit against Coffee Couple and the Boyles for acts of racial discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, gender discrimination and disability discrimination. Five plaintiffs were represented in this action; Chad T. Hansen of MERG represented two of the Plaintiffs, Jessica Page and Brittany Corliss, on their claims of gender and pregnancy discrimination. The MHRC and the DRC represented the remaining three plaintiffs on their claims of race and disability discrimination.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

On July 6, 2011, the United States District Court of Maine in Bangor issued a decision that permits a disability discrimination lawsuit against Bath Iron Works (BIW) to go forward. A former employee of BIW, Guillermo Blanco, brought the lawsuit against BIW (which is owned by General Dynamics Corporation).

The lawsuit alleges that BIW’s doctor violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and a similar Maine law, when he shared Mr. Blanco’s confidential medical information with BIW management. BIW fired Mr. Blanco because of the information the doctor provided to management. BIW said it fired Mr. Blanco because it thought he lied about the fact that he had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in a medical questionnaire. Mr. Blanco said he didn’t lie; he said he didn’t think the questionnaire asked about mental health issues. The Court said it didn’t matter whether he lied or not. The ADA forbids company doctors from sharing confidential medical information with management except in limited circumstances not present in this case. When the doctor told management that Mr. Blanco had ADHD, a violation of the ADA occurred. BIW will be held responsible for the violation if Mr. Blanco presents evidence to support his allegations because BIW’s doctor made the unlawful disclosure and its managers acted on the information.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces the ADA, “[h]istorically, many employers asked applicants and employees to provide information concerning their physical and/or mental condition. This information often was used to exclude and otherwise discriminate against individuals with disabilities–particularly nonvisible disabilities, such as diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, cancer, and mental illness–despite their ability to perform the job.” The ADA’s medical confidentiality requirements are important safeguards against discrimination because it is so easy for a manager to come up with a false excuse to fire an employee because he has a disability. By preventing managers from learning of employees’ disabilities, it prevents this type of discrimination.

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