Thursday, March 26, 2015
- MHRC: Commission Changes in Early Case Processing Procedure Effective for cases filed on/after Jan. 1, 2015
- HUD: Proposed rule would implement the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, which expands HUD’s authority to protect survivors of domestic and dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault who are residing in housing assisted by HUD
- US Supreme Court: In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Court articulated a new standard for proving a denial of reasonable accommodation for pregnancy under Title VII provision that requires employers to treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or in- ability to work”: Plaintiff must show disparate treatment under a McDonnell Douglas framework in which she proves pretext “by providing sufficient evidence that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers, and that the employer’s ‘legitimate, nondiscriminatory’ reasons are not sufficiently strong to justify the burden, but rather—when considered along with the burden imposed—give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination[, and] plaintiff can create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a significant burden exists by providing evidence that the employer accommodates a large percentage of nonpregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers”
- US District Court ME: In affirming Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision granting motion for collective action under Fair Labor Standards Act and certification of class action on state unpaid overtime and minimum wage claims, the court wrote separately on the class action requirements of commonality, predominance, superiority, and ascertainability to ensure the required “rigorous analysis” was conducted
- Law Court: In reversing Superior Court denial of motion to consolidate dispute by various attorneys to $1.2 million fee, the court noted that lower courts do not have unfettered discretion to separate cases when “closely-related claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims among the parties directly affect what any particular party may eventually be awarded and which party will be required to pay those awards”
- Law Court: Oral arguments set for April 7th include Ken-14-347, Patricia Galouch v. Department of Professional & Financial Regulation et al., which will decide various issues under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act including the scope of protected activity and whether plaintiff is bound by factual findings in a prior arbitration decision
- Bangor Daily: Human rights panel finds grounds for discrimination in Camden housing case
- Bangor Daily: Rights panel turns aside LePage plea to reopen bias case against Moody’s Diner
- Sun Journal: Judge orders Albany Township man to pay assault victim $1.2 million
