Saturday, April 2, 2016
- First Circuit: The court affirmed summary judgment for employer on Americans with Disabilities Act and Age Discrimination in Employment claims, finding that defendant’s “List of Employees” with 27 names did not establish that defendant had the requisite number of employees under the ADA (15) or the ADEA (20) because it did not show whether the listed individuals had an employment relationship with defendant under traditional agency principles, and did not reflect employment during the relevant time period (“for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year”)
- Law Court: In affirming judgment for defendant following jury verdict on small claims action, the court held, in part, that the decision in a small claims action to grant a jury trial de novo is akin to a denial of a motion for summary judgment, which is not subject to appeal; rather, the issue that is subject to appeal is whether the ultimate verdict is supported by the evidence presented at trial
- HUD: Final rule published that, in part, prohibits organizations that receive Federal financial assistance under a HUD program or activity from discriminating against beneficiaries or prospective beneficiaries on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to attend or participate in a religious practice, in providing services or carrying out activities with such assistance
- US DOL: Rule that takes effect April 25, 2016, requires that employers and the consultants they hire file reports not only for direct persuader activities – consultants talking to workers – but also for indirect persuader activities – consultants scripting what managers and supervisors say to workers about union organizing
- Superior Court: the court granted law firm’s motion for summary judgment on claims of conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair trade practices, and civil conspiracy arising out of the distribution of surplus funds following the sale of plaintiff’s home after a foreclosure handled by law firm on behalf of bank
- US Supreme Court: Oral argument held in Ross v. Blake, which will decide whether there is a common law “special circumstances” exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act that relieves an inmate of his mandatory obligation to exhaust administrative remedies when the inmate erroneously believes that he satisfied exhaustion by participating in an internal investigation
- MHRC: April 11th Agenda and Consent Agenda published
- Bangor Daily: Former Gouldsboro police chief sues town