Monday, February 22, 2016
- EEOC: New nationwide procedures implemented that provide for the release of respondent position statements and non-confidential attachments to a charging party or her representative upon request during the investigation
- Maine Superior Court: The court held that defendant in personal injury action could not introduce at trial the amount that MaineCare paid for plaintiff’s medical bills
- Maine Superior Court: The court denied summary judgment in medical malpractice action brought by pedestrian struck by defendant neurologist’s patient, finding that neurologist owed pedestrian duty to warn patient not to drive in light of patient’s medical condition
- Second Circuit: The court held that “race” includes ethnicity, so that discrimination based on Hispanic ancestry or lack thereof constitutes racial discrimination under § 1981 and Title VII
- Eleventh Circuit: The court held that the Fair Housing Act protects renters not only from discriminatory eviction, but also from discriminatory actions that would lead to eviction but for an intervening cause (defendants initiated eviction proceedings that ceased when the property changed hands)
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: Proposed amendments to the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure include allowing Rule 5(b) service by electronic means and changing the time for defendant’s answer to a complaint from 20 days to 21 days
- Law Court: Oral arguments scheduled for March include Ken-15-281 (whether plaintiff in wrongful death claim was an employee of defendant, thereby making the claim subject to Workers’ Comp bar); And-15-260 (application of 24 M.R.S. § 2511, providing immunity for any person making a report or assisting in an investigation relating to a medical provider); Kno-15-282 (whether insurer had duty to defend claims for slander of title, interference with advantageous relationships, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and declaratory relief)
- US District Court ME: Magistrate granted plaintiff’s motion for a jury trial filed after the Rule 38 deadline
- First Circuit: The court vacated district court’s decision upholding ERISA denial of benefits claim, holding that discretionary decisionmaking authority in an ERISA plan must be couched in terms that unambiguously indicate that the claims administrator has discretion to construe the terms of the plan and determine whether benefits are due in particular instances (the plan at issue was ambiguous in that regard)
- First Circuit: The court granted summary judgment for employer on False Claims Act retaliation claim
