Saturday, March 2, 2019
- EEOC: Proposed rules (comment deadline 4/23) will, in part: 1) explicitly provide for digital transmissions of documents during case processing at the EEOC; 2) clarify that if a state Fair Employment Practice agency’s statute covers the same general basis or category of discrimination alleged by the charging party (for example, age or disability discrimination), the charging party has 300 (not 180) days to file a charge, even if the state law does not apply to the particular circumstances or theory of relief, such as a failure to accommodate theory; 3) more clearly communicate that the EEOC’s “no cause” closure of a charge does not mean the claims have no merit; and 4) allow EEOC employees other than office directors to issue dismissals and determinations
- 7th Circuit: Because a supervisor’s use of racially toxic language in the workplace is more serious than a co-worker’s, three racial epithets by supervisor created a hostile work environment under Title VII (if uttered by a coworker they would have been insufficient)
- 4th Circuit: A false rumor that a female employee slept with her male boss to obtain a promotion discriminates because of sex under Title VII because it “plausibly invokes a deeply rooted perception—one that unfortunately still persists—that generally women, not men, use sex to achieve success”
- Maine Legislature: Work session scheduled for March 6th at 1:00 PM before Labor Committee on LD 369, which would create a right to paid sick leave for employees who are employed by an employer that employs more than 5 employees, and a right to unpaid sick leave for employees of an employer that employs 5 or fewer employees
- Maine Legislature: Work session scheduled for March 6th at 1:00 PM before Labor Committee on LD 733, which would prohibit an employer from requiring or entering into noncompete agreements with employees earning wages that are at or below 300% of the federal poverty level, and forbid restrictive employment agreements between two or more employers that prohibit or restrict one employer from soliciting or hiring another employer’s employees or former employees
- US District Court ME: Summary judgment denied on Americans with Disabilities Act and Maine Human Rights Act denial of reasonable accommodation claim because, in part, Plaintiff sufficiently requested a reasonable accommodation for emotional outburst at work (she was asked to resign because of it) when she told her employer that she had early menopause following her hysterectomy, had hot flashes and had become emotional, and “she just needed to be able to wash her face and go back to work” and she would have been fine
- US District Court ME: In denying summary judgment on Maine Human Rights Act claim that defendant refused to hire plaintiff as a hairstylist because of his epilepsy, the court 1) held that epilepsy is a per se covered disability under the MHRA and plaintiff did not need to show substantial limitation on a major life activity or significant impairment on physical or mental health; 2) held plaintiff met prima-facie showing that his epilepsy was part of the reason he was not hired because supervisor told subordinate it was “not appropriate” to hire plaintiff, a statement the court found “as significant for what it does not say as for what it says”; 3) addressed but did not decide whether a plaintiff may use evidence of pretext to make prima-facie showing of discriminatory animus; and 4) found pretext for discriminatory animus because the reasons defendant gave at the Maine Human Rights Commission for refusing to hire plaintiff conflicted with the reasons it gave in court.
- First Circuit: On Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, a jury could supportably find the use of a Taser to quell a nonviolent, mentally ill person who is resisting arrest to be excessive force; but defendants were nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because this standard was not clearly established at the time of the incident giving rise to the complaint (2013)
- Law Court: Anti-SLAPP statute did not require dismissal of defamation lawsuit because complaint was not based on defendant’s petitioning activities
- Law Court: Oral arguments scheduled for March 4th include Cum-18-154 (whether attorney committed professional negligence by failing to advise clients that settlement agreement prior attorney had executed on their behalf was invalid because the former attorney did not have the authority to execute the agreement)
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: Chief Justice Saufley’s Annual State of the Judiciary Address includes an update on the transition to digital records and e-filing
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: Proposed Digital Court Records Access Rules published (comments due March 27th)
- MHRC: March 4th Commission Meeting Agenda and Consent Agenda posted
- Press Herald: Discrimination lawsuit against Portland waterfront restaurant settled
- Sun Journal: Buckfield settles discrimination suit for $30K
