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.
Friday, May 9, 2014
- First Circuit: In vacating summary judgment for police department on black officers’ Title VII disparate impact claim arising out of hair sample testing for cocaine in which black officers tested positive 1.3% of the time and white officers .3%, the court held that a plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate “practical significance” cannot preclude that plaintiff from relying on competent evidence of “statistical significance” to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact
- Law Court: In vacating jury verdict and judgment as a matter of law for landlord on claims arising out of lead paint exposure, the court held that the trial court committed clear error by improperly excluding plaintiffs’ expert witnesses; erroneously entered judgment as a matter of law on negligence, IIED, and punitive damages claims; and improperly shifted the burden of proof onto plaintiffs to disprove landlord’s independent causation theories and refused to give the jury a proper and requested instruction
- MHRC: Appointment of new Commissioner confirmed
- HUD: $10,000 conciliation agreement announced in claim that apartment complex owners and managers violated the Fair Housing Act prohibition on familial status discrimination by implementing a policy that children must be supervised by an adult at all times while playing outside
- Bangor Daily: Oakhurst drivers sue company for overtime pay
- Bangor Daily: LePage nominates Hjelm to Maine’s high court, Stokes to Superior Court
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
- Supreme Court: Finding a “clear misapprehension of summary judgment standards,” the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment for police officer on Fourth Amendment claim because the Fifth Circuit credited the evidence of the party seeking summary judgment and failed properly to acknowledge key evidence offered by the party opposing that motion
- Supreme Court: The Court held that town opening its monthly board meetings with a prayer led by Christian ministers was not an impermissible establishment of religion
- First Circuit: In affirming summary judgment for employer on FMLA claim, the court held that employer’s failure to provide adequate or timely notice and designation of FMLA rights was not actionable because employee did not show that he would have been able to return to work within 12 weeks if he had received appropriate notice, and, therefore, did not suffer harm
- MHRC: Minutes of April 28th Commission meeting posted
Friday, May 2, 2014
- Law Court: Proposed amendment to Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure would reduce the time to file appellant’s brief from 8 to 4 weeks after the record on appeal is complete in various cases including, e.g., terminations of parental rights, involuntary commitment, and findings of not criminally responsible by reason of insanity
- First Circuit: In affirming dismissal of remaining part of federal False Claims Act suit brought by pharmaceutical representative against former employer for off-label marketing of prescription medications (he had earlier shared in a settlement with the federal government of over $300 million that involved part of his case), the court held that two earlier suits brought by others barred plaintiff’s claim under the “first to file” rule because the earlier claims were related actions based on the same underlying facts, even though the earlier actions were not identical
- US District Court ME: In prison inmate’s First Amendment claim, Magistrate Judge excluded claim for compensatory damages for emotional distress because the Prison Litigation Reform Act precludes such recovery in the absence of physical injury, noting a circuit split on the issue and no decision from the First Circuit
- Fifth Circuit: In reversing dismissal of FMLA claim, the court held that collective bargaining agreement did not clearly and unmistakably make the FMLA part of the agreement and thus FMLA claims were not subject to mandatory arbitration where agreement merely referenced FMLA and required that policies comply with FMLA
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
- MHRC: Bids farewell to Paul K. Vestal, Jr.
- First Circuit: In affirming summary judgment for employer in Age Discrimination in Employment Act termination claim, the court found that the record was devoid of evidence from which a jury could infer that employer’s proffered reason for terminating plaintiff was a pretext for age discrimination
- Sixth Circuit: In reversing summary judgment for employer on Rehab Act and ADA Title II failure-to-hire claim, the court found sufficient evidence of pretext because interviewers did not ask plaintiff questions during job interview covering the areas that they later claimed were the reasons she was not hired
- Press Herald: Three workers sue South Portland hotel in sexual harassment case
Friday, April 25, 2014
- US District Court ME: The court granted summary judgment for defendants on Fourth Amendment claim arising out of warrentless search of probationer’s home because plaintiff consented to a search of his residence as a condition of his probation
- MHRC: April 28th Commission meeting Agenda and Consent Agenda posted
- SCOTUSBLOG: Post describes issues in next Monday’s oral argument in Lane v. Franks, which will decide whether the government is categorically free under the First Amendment to retaliate against a public employee for truthful sworn testimony that was compelled by subpoena and was not a part of the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities
- Portland Press Herald: Maine spectator sues over racetrack injuries
- Portland Press Herald: Former Augusta ER doctor loses appeal to Maine Supreme Court
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
- US Supreme Court: The Court held that the US Constitution does not invalidate a Michigan constitutional amendment that prohibits the use of race-based preferences as part of the admissions process for state universities
- Law Court: In affirming interlocutory denial of summary judgment to individual defendant in Maine Civil Rights Act (MCRA) claim, the court held that absolute immunity under the Maine Tort Claims Act does not apply to claims under the MCRA, and that disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment for defendant on common-law qualified immunity
- First Circuit: In reversing summary judgment for employer and granting it on liability for employees in FLSA overtime case, the court held that “per diem” that was paid to plaintiffs in addition to their regular hourly wages was based upon and thus varied with the number of hours worked per week, and thus should have been included in calculating overtime
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
- Law Court: Oral argument recordings posted, including appeal from plaintiff’s verdict in medical malpractice case, And-13-320 (whether letter acknowledging doctor should have waited for biopsy results is inadmissible under 24 M.R.S. § 2907); denial of summary judgment to individual defendant in due process and unreasonable search claim under Maine Civil Rights Act, Ken-13-71(whether Maine Tort Claims Act provides immunity); and summary judgment for former priest in sexual abuse case, Cum-13-347 (whether two-year SOL for intentional torts should be tolled)
- US Dept of Justice: Final rule increases the maximum civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Civil Rights Division under title III of the ADA from $55,000 to $75,000 for a first violation and $150,000 for a subsequent violation
- Bangor Daily: Longtime coach, athletic director sues Aroostook County school district, superintendents
Monday, April 14, 2014
Thursday, April 10, 2014
- First Circuit: In affirming motion to dismiss federal employee’s Rehabilitation Act claim, the court held that plaintiff failed to contest that the 45-day administrative filing deadline applied (and therefore it did) and that equitable tolling did not extend the deadline because (1) plaintiff did not show “excusable ignorance” where defendant had complied with its posting requirements and (2) she did not show that her mental illness was so severe that she was “unable to engage in rational thought and deliberate decision making sufficient to pursue her claim alone or through counsel”
- MHRC: April 28th Commission Meeting Agenda posted
