Monday, September 11, 2023
- EEOC: Extensive technical assistance document, “Visual Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” offers over 40 examples of reasonable accommodations and policy modifications
- EEOC: Comments due by October 10, 2023, on proposed rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which requires a covered entity to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions
- EEOC: Technical assistance document that answers questions about how artificial intelligence and employment selection procedures may run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) is part of the EEOC’s Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness Initiative, which works to ensure that software—including AI—used in hiring and other employment decisions complies with the federal civil rights laws
- Maine Legislature: Effective October 25, 2023, the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) has been amended to increase the compensatory and punitive damages caps to a range from $100,000 to $1 million
- Maine Legislature: Effective October 25, 2023, exception to tort bar under Maine Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity provision created that allows common law claims against individuals for sexual harassment, sexual assault, or intentional torts related to sexual harassment or sexual assault
- Maine Legislature: Paid family and medical leave law enacted that will start May 1, 2026
- Maine Department of Labor: Webpage created for paid family and medical leave law, which will include information on the Department’s rulemaking process
- US Supreme Court: Showing “more than a de minimis cost” as that phrase is used in common parlance does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” for purposes of employer defense to providing a religious accommodation under Title VII
- US Supreme Court: Certiorari granted on the following question: Does Title VII prohibit discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage?
- US Supreme Court: The First Amendment prevents Colorado from enforcing its nondiscrimination law to require website designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples
- US Supreme Court: Even for claims premised on the past denial of a free and appropriate education, plaintiffs are not required to exhaust administrative procedures under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”) prior to bringing claims under other federal antidiscrimination statutes such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 if the remedy they seek is not one the IDEA provides
- Law Court: In the context of analyzing trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction, the court noted that an employer requiring an employee to be “100 percent fit or fully healed” to return to work is only a per se violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (and presumably also the MHRA) if the employee was capable of performing the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: 8/18/2023 Administrative Order regarding remote proceedings provides that pretrial, discovery or status conferences and non-testimonial hearings in civil cases shall be conducted remotely, but all other proceedings in civil cases shall be held in person unless otherwise ordered
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: 6/30/2023 Standing Order for Limited Access to Juror Information provides, in part, that “[e]very person to whom juror information is disclosed or disseminated under this Order . . . Shall return or destroy all juror information to the Clerk’s office at the end of the trial or trials for which the juror information was obtained or the earlier disposition of the case(s)”
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: 5/9/2023 Administrative Order provides, in part, that “[a]ll cellular phones, computers, and other electronic devices shall be turned off prior to entering the courtroom, unless otherwise authorized by the presiding judge, justice, or magistrate”
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: 3/30/2023 Administrative Order prohibits courthouse entry if a person is experiencing symptoms related to COVID-19 or has received a positive COVID-19 test in the past five days
- First Circuit Court of Appeals: Motion to dismiss healthcare workers’ First Amendment and Equal Protection complaint against the State of Maine denied because it plausibly alleged that State COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers impermissibly has a medical exemption but not a religious exemption; but motion to dismiss Title VII failure to accommodate religion complaint against employers granted because the risk of the State suspending healthcare facilities’ licenses would have been an undue hardship
- First Circuit Court of Appeals: Summary judgment on professor’s sex discrimination and retaliation claims affirmed, where professor failed to show that reason for tenure denial was pretextual or based on sex, or that decision was because professor had complained about sexual harassment
- US District Court ME: After a detailed analysis of the pleading requirements for protected activity under the False Claims Act, the court disagreed with the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision and denied former employer’s motion to dismiss
- US District Court ME: On motion to dismiss former professor’s First Amendment complaint against university and its president alleging that she was fired for speaking out against the University’s facemask and vaccination policies, motion denied against president in his official capacity with respect to claim for reinstatement, under Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, but granted against him in his individual capacity based on qualified immunity
- US District Court ME: Plaintiff’s motion for equitable relief denied where jury returned verdict for defendant on quantum meruit claim, and quantum meruit is a “legal claim” subject to a jury trial; and court followed advisory jury verdict for defendant on unjust enrichment claim, which is an “equitable claim” where there is no right to a jury trial
- US District Court ME: Motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity granted because “the law is not clearly established that a state official who verbally pursues a sexual relationship with an employee of a private company violates the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, even if the verbal pursuit qualifies as workplace sexual harassment for purposes of a motion to dismiss”
