Monday, July 29, 2019

First Circuit: As a matter of first impression interpreting the non-retaliation provision in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the court held that a different set of remedies is available for retaliation depending upon the discriminatory practice opposed, i.e., Title I (employment) remedies for retaliation in employment, Title II (public entity) remedies for retaliation in public entities, and Title III (public accommodation) remedies for retaliation in public accommodations; so no compensatory or nominal damages were available for Title III retaliation
US District Court ME: Interpreting 2015 amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e), the court held that plaintiff was not entitled to a jury instruction that video that was destroyed while in defendant retailer’s possession was unfavorable to defendant, even if it were destroyed intentionally, because plaintiff did not show that defendant intended to deprive plaintiff of his ability to use the video in the lawsuit; and the court granted summary judgment for retailer on premises liability negligence action arising out of murder of one customer by another because evidence was insufficient to show that retailer knew or should have known that violent customer was a danger to other customers
MHRC: July 22nd meeting minutes include that a new investigator has been hired and a new intake and outreach position will be filled

Website Design & Development © 2025 Links Web Design, Bangor, Maine

Website Content Copyright © 2025 Eastern Maine Law | Sitemap