Legal Updates
John Gause monitors what’s happening in employment discrimination, civil rights, and tort law. He shares some of what he finds on this page.
Monday, November 10, 2014
- US District Court ME: Proposed amendment to Local Rule 56(h) would change the deadline from 14 to 7 days for a party intending to file a motion for summary judgment to file a joint proposed schedule or notice of need for pre-filing conference
- US District Court ME: Proposed amendment to Local Rule 16.3 would change the deadlines in social security disability cases
- MHRC: November 17th Agenda and Consent Agenda posted
- Bangor Daily: Court rules in favor of Knox County in lawsuit by female inmate who was sexually assaulted by jail guard
- Bangor Daily: Bar Harbor gift shop accused of discriminating against disabled former employee
- Bangor Daily: Knox County to ask U.S. Supreme Court to review appeal in inmate injury lawsuit
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
- US District Court ME: Magistrate Judge recommended denial, in part, of summary judgment for town on 4th Amendment unreasonable seizure and 14th Amendment due process claims where sheriff seized generator from plaintiff’s property during search conducted pursuant to a warrant but the generator was not listed in the warrant (another person was present during the search and told the sheriff the generator was his)
- First Circuit: In affirming summary judgment for employer on unpaid overtime claim, the court held that plaintiffs were highly compensated employees exempt from the overtime protections of the FLSA
- HUD: $255,000 settlement reached in Fair Housing Act case filed by HUD in which owner of apartment complex assigned a mobility impaired resident to a third-floor unit in a building with no elevator, and threatened her with eviction for having her adult daughter, who was serving as her caregiver, in the unit
- HUD: $25,000 consent order entered in Fair Housing Act case in which bank required loan applicants with disabilities to provide medical documentation proving that they would continue to receive disability income for at least three years
Friday, October 31, 2014
- Law Court: In affirming decision granting 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court held that the requirement in Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 5(f), 7(b)(2), and 11(a) that filings, pleadings, motions, and other papers be signed requires an original signature, and that the photocopy of plaintiff’s signature in her objection to defendant’s motion did not have legal effect
- Law Court: The court held that unjust enrichment claim against estate was subject to the statute of limitations in 18-A M.R.S. §3-803(b) because §3-803(b) expressly covers “all claims”; language, “including claims . . . founded on contract, tort, or other legal basis,” was intended only to list examples, not to limit the scope of §3-803(b)
- US District Court ME: Judge Hornby denied employer’s motion for summary judgment in age and sex discrimination complaint in one paragraph
- Bangor Daily: Gag order request denied in wrongful death lawsuit against Bangor police officers, city
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
- US District Court ME: In refusing to adopt recommended decision granting motion for summary judgment for employer on employment discrimination punitive damages claim, the court held that employer’s adoption of a non-discrimination policy and its distribution of the policy to its employees is not, without more, proof of the policy’s “active enforcement” as is required to establish employer’s affirmative defense to punitive damages
- US District Court ME: Finding potential prejudice to defendant and confusion of the jury, the court denied motion to consolidate employment discrimination complaints of three former employees of same employer where, although all three involved claims of unlawful retaliation, the facts in each differed; only one alleged age discrimination; and only one alleged racial discrimination
- First Circuit: The court affirmed 12(b)(6) dismissal of complaint that union ran its hiring hall in a discriminatory way, retaliated against plaintiff for complaining about the discrimination, and breached its duty of fair representation
- First Circuit: In a case of first impression in this Circuit, the court resolved the operation of the two 30-day time limits for removal of class actions to federal court
Friday, October 24, 2014
- EEOC: Sexual harassment lawsuit filed alleging female farmworkers were groped, repeatedly propositioned for sex and subjected to lewd comments about their bodies by their supervisors and male co-workers while working at County Fair Farm in Jefferson, Maine; case falls within one of six of the EEOC’s national priorities
- EEOC: $72,500 settlement announced in ADA case alleging that Wal-Mart East refused to hire applicant with end-stage renal disease who was unable to take a urinalysis test for illegal drugs
- HUD: $350,000 settlement announced in complaint alleging landlord violated Residential Lead Act; landlord must replace windows and clean up lead-based paint hazards in 136 residential properties containing a total of 224 units
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
- US District Court ME: Court dismissed without prejudice counterclaim by Regional School Unit against Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act plaintiff’s attorney under IDEA provision that allows schools to collect attorney’s fees against plaintiffs’ attorneys who bring claims that are “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation,” holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 only allows counterclaims against opposing parties, not their attorneys (court stated that school may file fee application against attorney at close of case under Local Rule 54.2)
- First Circuit: In the context of dismissing various claims brought by parents alleging discrimination by Puerto Rico Department of Education, the court reiterated that, while IDEA claims cannot be brought under § 1983 in order to obtain greater relief than is allowed by the IDEA, “denying a child a free appropriate public education on account of his disability could, for instance, be a valid basis for a claim under either the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA, even if the factual basis for those claims might overlap with that of an IDEA claim”
- First Circuit: Court affirmed 12(b)(6) dismissal of civil rights lawsuit brought by parent arising out of a child abuse investigation by the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families because, in part, because defendants had a “reasonable suspicion that child abuse has occurred or, alternatively, that a threat of abuse is imminent”
Friday, October 17, 2014
- Seventh Circuit: In reversing summary judgment for employer in ADA claim brought by nursing home hairdresser who was unable because of disability to push residents in wheelchairs to beauty shop (which took 1.7 hours out of 35-hour work week), the court, Posner, J., held that reasonable accommodation would have been for other employees to perform the job function at a negligible cost to employer; concurring judge wrote that an employer need not reassign an essential job function to another employee, but Judge Posner held that a function “wasn’t essential if it was so small a part that it could be reassigned to other employees at a negligible cost to the employer”
- MHRC: November 17th Commission Meeting Agenda posted
- US DOL: Department of Labor announced website on accessible workplace technology
- Press Herald: Nurse who worked at Maine State Prison files racial discrimination lawsuit
Saturday, October 11, 2014
- EEOC: Systemic ADA lawsuit filed based on 19 charges around the country against FedEx Ground for failing to provide package handler applicants with needed accommodations such as American Sign Language interpretation and closed-captioned training videos during the mandatory initial tour of the facilities and new-hire orientation for deaf and hard-of-hearing applicants; and refusing to provide needed equipment substitutions and modifications for deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers, such as providing scanners that vibrate instead of beep and installing flashing safety lights on moving equipment
- US District Court ME: Magistrate Judge recommended enforcement of agreement resolve civil action for $15,000 and “a confidentiality provision, a non-disparagement provision, and a no-contact provision”; fact that the parties did not agree on the exact language regarding the provisions does not render the settlement agreement unenforceable
- Eighth Circuit: In reversing summary judgment for employer in Age Discrimination in Employment Act case, the court found sufficient evidence that plaintiff’s termination was because of her age where employer correlated increase in healthcare costs with advancing age (contrasted with cases holding that years of service is analytically distinct from age); in an email discussing renewal rates, defendant wrote, “since last year we have lost our oldest and sickest employees . . . . Please let me know if this is the best we can do . . . .”
- DOJ: New technical assistance publication: Solutions for Five Common ADA Access Problems at Polling Places
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
- US Supreme Court: Certiorari granted in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., to resolve question: “Whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act”
- US Supreme Court: Certiorari granted in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., in which employer refused to hire applicant because she wore a head scarf (hijab) but claimed applicant did not notify it she wore the scarf for religious purposes or request a reasonable accommodation from its “classic East Coast collegiate style” dress code; question presented: “Whether an employer can be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice” only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer’s actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee”
- US Supreme Court: Certiorari granted in Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson, to resolve question: “Whether, under the ‘three strikes’ provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit counts as a “strike” while it is still pending on appeal or before the time for seeking appellate review has passed”
- Law Court: Oral Arguments scheduled this week, including on October 9th, 13-474, plaintiff appealing defense jury verdict in auto negligence case; 13-544, defendant appealing jury verdict for plaintiff in school bus and bicycle accident; 14-150, plaintiff appealing summary judgment in professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against law firm
- US District Court ME: In granting summary judgment for United States in medical malpractice claim against Pleasant Point Health Center, a tribally operated facility under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (making it subject to Federal Tort Claims Act), court held that FTCA notice filed outside two-year FTCA statute of limitations was not excused by equitable estoppel or equitable tolling
- First Circuit: Court affirmed summary judgment for insurer on long-term disability denial because plaintiff failed to meet six-month deadline for internal appeal and benefit plan had expressly incorporated appeal deadline into the benefit plan’s written instrument
- HUD: $495,000 settlement reached in Fair Housing Act sex discrimination case against municipality that enacted ordinances that held landlords responsible for evicting tenants cited for “disorderly behavior,” including domestic violence incidents
- EEOC: Agency filed lawuit alleging employer violated Americans with Disabilities Act when it failed to reinstate employee who had been on leave for post-partum depression or transfer her vacant positions instead of simply allowing her to compete for them (issues involving the ADA and pregnancy-related limitations is one of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan)
Thursday, October 2, 2014
- MHRC: Effective September 24, 2014, the Maine Human Rights Commission repealed and replaced its Employment Regulations (Chapter 3) and amended its Procedural Rule (Chapter 2). The Chapter 3 changes update the Rule to include the employment provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act and provisions in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The Chapter 2 changes allow parties to complaints to pay for mediations conducted through the Commission’s Third-Party Neutral Mediation Program.
- US Supreme Court: Among cases to be decided during 2014-2015 term, which opens Monday:
- Young v. United Parcel Service: Whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.”
- US v. Wong: Whether the six-month time bar for filing suit in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling.
- US v. June: Whether the two-year time limit for filing an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling.
- Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Whether and to what extent a court may enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.
- US DOJ: New technical assistance publication issued, “The Americans with Disabilities Act and Other Federal Laws Protecting the Rights of Voters with Disabilities”
- US District Court ME: Proposed Amendment to Local Rule 16.1 posted (public comment deadline October 31), which would remove forclosure actions from the Standard Track and add Fair Labor Standards Act and False Claim Act cases; personal injury litigation; and civil rights cases other than prisoner civil rights
- EEOC: Second EEOC lawsuit filed directly challenging an employer-provided wellness program under the Americans with Disabilities Act on the grounds that employees were penalized (including payment of full health insurance premium compared with 25%) for refusing to complete health risk assessment and submit to biometric testing, which were “disability-related inquiries and medical examinations”
- Bangor Daily: Jury awards ex-Bangor mall beautician more than $100,000 in damages
- Bangor Daily: Judge considering sex assault lawsuit against Cherryfield businessman
