Saturday, June 16, 2018
- Law Court: The court held that an employer is not required to pay for medical marijuana under Workers’ Comp because doing so would constitute criminal aiding and abetting (marijuana distribution is still illegal under federal law), and a state requirement that an employer commit a federal crime is preempted
- US Supreme Court: Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, effective December 1, 2018, include amendments to Rule 5 (service) to account for more widespread use of electronic court filings, including the elimination of the certificate of service requirement when a paper is served by filing it with the court’s electronic-filing system; and amendments to Rule 23 (class actions), Rule 62 (stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment), and Rule 65.1 (proceedings against a surety)
- First Circuit: In reversing summary judgment for employer on sex discrimination claim that employer transferred plaintiff and filled her former position with a male in violation of Title VII, the court held that plaintiff’s experience and reputation should have been considered in comparing her qualifications with the male’s despite the male having superior educational credentials; and that job transfer was an “adverse employment action” despite it not having a decrease in rank, benefits, or pay because transfer left her with “significantly different responsibilities” by rendering useless her prior experience and knowledge in the field of radio communications
- US District Court ME: The court, in part, denied summary judgment on failure to accommodate disability claim by installing push-button access to the heavy wooden doors because, while maybe not needed for plaintiff to perform the essential functions of his job, there was sufficient evidence that without it he did not enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment by making it difficult for him to enter and exit the workplace
- US District Court ME: Motion to dismiss Maine Human Rights Act claim granted where complaint alleged employer “fired [plaintiff] in November of 2015 for reasons that demonstrate disability discrimination similar to the allegations set forth above,” which was a legal conclusion without factual allegations that demonstrate a basis for relief
- MHRC: June 25th Commission Meeting Agenda and Consent Agenda published
