Friday, July 13, 2018
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: Effective July 1, 2018, package of amendments to the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure require represented parties to serve pleadings and other papers electronically upon one another or by delivering copies (for the most part eliminating service by mail)
- US Courts: “Just the Facts” reports that, while overall civil rights cases have declined, cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act have increased three-fold in recent years
- Fifth Circuit: Summary judgment denied on Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims by nurse in assisted living facility who was harassed by resident and facility did not prevent the harassment; nurse’s refusal to work with resident (nurse was fired for that reason) was protected activity for purposes of retaliation claim
- First Circuit: The court held (in unreported decision) that plaintiff’s attorney waived objection to trial judge’s failure to give quid-pro-quo jury instruction on Title VII claim where attorney initially objected to the omission but then said, “okay, fair enough,” when judge explained that the instruction given had been favorable to plaintiff
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: Effective August 1, 2018, Maine Rule of Evidence 801 is amended so that a fact-finder can now consider an admissible prior consistent statement both for its rehabilitative and substantive effect; and the business records exception to the hearsay rule (M.R.Evid. 803(6)) is amended to clarify that it is the opponent’s burden (not the proponent’s) to show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation of the record indicate a lack of trustworthiness
- Law Court: Oral arguments scheduled for July 18th and 19th include Cum-18-15 (whether plaintiff stated a claim against former employer for interference with employment contract for testifying against former employer at an unemployment proceeding, and whether prospective employer was immune from suit under Maine Health Security Act), and Pen-17-549 (whether small claims statute bars the application of res judicata principles to small claims judgments)
