Wednesday, August 10, 2016
- Ninth Circuit: The court held that the retaliation provision in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not preclude a § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim that plaintiff was fired for planning to testify against defendant in a lawsuit relating to age discrimination (despite the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision that the ADEA precludes § 1983 equal protection age discrimination claims)
- MHRC: Minutes from the August 8th meeting reflect that new Commissioner appointee, Fred Oettinger, who is replacing A. Mavourneen Thompson, was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee and the Senate and will attend the September meeting; the Commission hired two new Field Investigators, and will be losing Investigator Audrey Gillespie; and Nicole Auclair joined the Commission’s as a Paralegal Assistant
- US District Court ME: Granting summary judgment for plaintiff in employment discrimination claim on defendant’s affirmative defense that plaintiff failed to mitigate her lost-wage damages, the court held that defendant failed to show that comparable jobs to plaintiff’s prior position with defendant were available in the relevant geographic area
- US District Court ME: In denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on sex discrimination claims, the court held, in part, that individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment claims because it was clearly established in 2011 that a supervisory official who directly engages in sexual harassment or sexual discrimination against a subordinate employee is subject to § 1983 liability, and that a supervisor who, with an unlawful retaliatory motive, passes on accurate information and a recommendation to discharge a subordinate may face § 1983 liability; and that arbitration decisions pursued under a collective bargaining agreement do not have preclusive effect in Title VII or § 1983 claims
- First Circuit: The court held that a child with a strong overall academic achievement but a reading fluency deficit may have a learning disability and be eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
- First Circuit: The court affirmed $53,662.50 attorney’s fee award against sex discrimination plaintiff to law firm defendant where plaintiff did not substantively challenge district court’s conclusion that plaintiff continued to pursue claim revealed to be frivolous and without foundation during her deposition; and held that fees incurred by law firm’s associates were nevertheless recoverable
- Maine DOL: John Feeney Appointed Director of the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation at Maine Department of Labor
