Saturday, September 18, 2021
- US District Court ME: The court denied corrections officers’ motion to dismiss (on qualified immunity grounds) county jail inmate’s Fourth Amendment Right to privacy claim against them (male and female) for remaining in a delivery room and observing plaintiff’s naked body during the course of her twenty hours of labor when they had no readily apparent penological justification or exigent circumstances for being there because, although there were no court cases clearly establishing the particular right at issue, its contours were nevertheless sufficiently definite in light of the clearly established right to privacy, right to shield one’s naked body from view from members of the opposite sex, and right not to have one’s genitals exposed to onlookers; and because it was bolstered by the Maine statute, 30-A M.R.S. § 1582, that provides, in part, that “[w]hen a prisoner or juvenile is admitted to a medical facility or birthing center for labor or childbirth, a corrections officer may not be present in the room during labor or childbirth unless specifically requested by medical personnel”; but the court dismissed the inmate’s claims arising out of being handcuffed when she was thirty-five weeks pregnant and walked across a parking lot because a due-process constitutional right not to be handcuffed while pregnant was not clearly established (although the right not to be handcuffed during labor is clearly established) and there is no private right of action under § 1582, which also prohibits a jail from using restraints on a prisoner known to be pregnant
- First Circuit: In reversing summary judgment for employer on Maine Human Rights Act disability and Whistleblowers’ Protection Act claims, the court held, in part, that plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation request for a modified work schedule of being allowed to miss work to attend medical appointments was distinguishable from the Law Court’s 2017 decision, Carnicella v. Mercy Hosp., which held that leaves of absence were unreasonable requests for accommodation as a matter of law in light of a since-rescinded provision in the Maine Human Rights Act (although the provision was in force at the time at issue in the First Circuit case)
- US District Court ME: Summary judgment for employer denied on physician practice manager’s Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act claim where doctor he reported had engaged in FMLA fraud and opioid overprescribing expressed concerns about him that apparently contributed to his termination, despite the fact that practice manager’s reports may have been self-serving (made to make his job easier) and more than a year had passed since the reports
- US District Court ME: On motion for reconsideration, Magistrate Judge left unchanged his prior protective order allowing plaintiff to defer the production of recorded interviews of certain witnesses until after their depositions in order to preserve the impeachment value of the recordings
- US District Court ME: Summary judgment granted on defamation claims because plaintiff, the former Chief of the Department of Podiatry at VA Togus, was a public figure and there was no evidence of actual malice
- US District Court ME: Summary judgment for the Department of Veterans Affairs denied on Title VII retaliation claim (but granted on underlying discrimination claims) because plaintiff showed sufficient evidence of protected activity (including informal complaints), causation (based on timing), and that the proffered reasons for adverse action were pretext for unlawful retaliation
- Maine Human Rights Commission: September 20th Agenda and Consent Agenda published
- Maine Human Rights Commission: The Commission will hold remote-only meetings until further notice
