Friday, June 8, 2018
- US Supreme Court: Without deciding whether the US constitution permits a baker to violate a state nondiscrimination law by refusing on religious grounds to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, the Court reversed judgment for couple because the baker’s religious freedom argument was not considered by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission “with the neutrality that the Free Exercise Clause requires” (based on a member of the Commission–without objection from the other Commissioners–commenting during a public meeting that freedom of religion had been used to justify discrimination throughout history, as well as to justify slavery and the holocaust)
- Law Court: Oral arguments on June 13th and June 14th will include Ken-17-453 (whether the Court should adopt the “Prisoner Mailbox Rule,” making a prisoner’s “filing” with the court effective upon the prisoner depositing with prison authorities mail addressed to the court); Cum-17-511 (whether the Superior Court erred when it confirmed an arbitration award and two amended awards because, in part, the arbitrator should have recused himself after the losing party’s attorney accused the arbitrator of violating an ethical rule and the arbitrator threatened to sue the attorney for libel); Pen-17-374 (whether trial court erred in unsuccessful ADEA claim by (1) excluding evidence; (2) refusing to instruct the jury that a claim of employment discrimination made to an employer can be “protected activity”; (4) admitting certain records created by supervisors; and (4) declining to waive costs)
- US District Court ME: The court denied motion for summary judgment on assistant manager’s claim for failure to accommodate his disability (Lyme disease) by modifying his work schedule to avoid late-afternoon shifts, finding working the shifts was not “solidly anchored in the realities of the workplace” where there were no schedule requirements in the position description; and denied summary judgment on Family and Medical Leave Act and Maine Family Medical Leave Requirements interference claims because employer authorized intermittent leave in the face of manager’s request for reduced schedule leave
- US District Court ME: In denying motion for summary judgment on age and disability employment discrimination claims, the court found that firing plaintiff purportedly for food safety violation without obtaining a statement from him violated employer’s established policy and was therefore evidence of pretext, and that boss asking plaintiff if he could “handle” a major remodeling showed boss’s concern about plaintiff’s ability to perform his job because of his age and medical condition
- US District Court ME: Adopted amendments to Local Rules effective December 1, 2017, include change to Local Rule 6 that makes clear that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 applies to any period of time provided for in the Local Rules
- Maine Superior Court: Following jury-waived trial, the court entered judgment for school department on former assistant principal’s Maine Human Rights Act retaliation claims because plaintiff had not engaged in protected activity, and, even if she had, the court credited employer’s nondiscriminatory explanation for its allegedly retaliatory actions (the court applied McDonnell Douglas because the parties agreed to it but noted that the Law Court would likely not use McDonnell Douglas for retaliation claims in light of Brady v. Cumberland County)
- MHRC: July 23rd Commission Meeting Agenda posted