Monday, July 18, 2016
- 10th Circuit: The court held that plasma donation center was a “service establishment” and thus a “public accommodation” covered by Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act despite the fact that, unlike the listed examples of service establishments, it did not charge a fee for its services (it paid for plasma donations)
- US District Court ME: Before ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss § 1983 claims against municipal defendant and police chief arising out of alleged sexual assaults by police officers more than six years prior to complaint, the court noted that the § 1983 six-year statute of limitations against municipality and chief runs from when plaintiffs knew or should have known of their role in the abuse as opposed to from the dates of the abuse, but invited the parties to address the applicability of a First Circuit decision in which it held (expressing a minority view) that the viability of a 1983 claim against individual municipal officers is a prerequisite to having a viable claim against a supervisor or municipality
- Law Court: The court affirmed Unemployment Insurance Commission decision that former retail worker was ineligible for Unemployment benefits because she was “available for full-time work” in her normal occupation where she was unable to work her former retail schedule because of her husband’s job change and its impact on her childcare situation
- Law Court: The court affirmed summary judgment on claim that plaintiff was constructively discharged for engaging in protected activity under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, finding that, although plaintiff’s supervisors alienated her, criticized her, and issued a negative performance review with a thirty-day performance plan due to her complaints of illegal and/or unsafe activity, the evidence would not allow a jury to reasonably conclude that the working conditions were so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in plaintiff’s shoes would have felt compelled to resign
- Law Court: The court affirmed summary judgment for employer and truck rental company on negligence claim arising out of automobile accident, where plaintiff had consistently argued that he was employed by employer and that rental company was vicariously liable, thus invoking the Workers’ Comp exclusivity provision
- Law Court: In remanding case to Superior Court to determine amounts due under medical payments provision of auto policy, the court held that payments under medical payments provision were in addition to payments due under underinsured motorist provision
- First Circuit: The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) (allowing substitution or joinder of an asset transferee) could be invoked to enforce a judgment and that District Court did not err by joining parties under Rule 25(c) as alter egos and holding them liable for the full judgment as opposed to just the amount of the transferred assets
- MHRC: August 8th Commission Meeting Agenda posted
- Maine Department of Labor: Summer Employer Update includes discussion of how the USDOL’s new overtime rules apply in Maine and that OSHA penalties will increase August 1st
