Legal Updates
John Gause monitors what’s happening in employment discrimination, civil rights, and tort law. He shares some of what he finds on this page.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
- First Circuit: In denying motion to dismiss First Amendment claim brought by real estate broker against licensing board, the court held that complaint sufficiently alleged that letter stating license was denied as untimely was pretexual
- US District Court ME: In denying employee benefits administrator’s (EBA) motion to dismiss it from employment discrimination claim against EBA’s client, the court held that the complaint sufficiently pled that EBA was plaintiff’s “employer” based on the fact that EBA administered the disability and FMLA claims for client and its determination of benefit status apparently affected plaintiff’s employment (termination if plaintiff’s leave of absence was not approved by EBA), and that ADA “safe harbor” did not apply
- US District Court ME: In recommending denial of summary judgment on 4th Amendment excessive force claim, Magistrate Judge found a triable issue on whether the circumstances made it reasonably necessary for police officer to take hold of plaintiff from behind, thrust him forcefully into a nearby vehicle, take him forcefully to the ground, and place him in a painful hold with his face pressed against the pavement; and whether officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the excessive use of force was the type and kind of erroneous judgment that a reasonable police officer under the same or similar circumstances might have made
- US District Court ME: Magistrate Judge recommended discretionary award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff’s counsel in ERISA claim in which insurer’s long-term disability benefits denial was vacated and remanded for further administrative review without an award of benefits
- EEOC: EEOC and FTC co-published two technical assistance documents that explain how the agencies’ respective laws apply to background checks performed for employment purposes
Friday, March 7, 2014
- US Supreme Court: The Court held that whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 extends to employees of a public company’s private contractors and subcontractors
- Law Court: Reversing summary judgment for insurer in automobile liability coverage dispute, the court held, in part, that the infancy doctrine did not render a deceased infant’s contract to purchase a car void when the infant had not exercised option to void the contract at the time of his death
- First Circuit: Affirming summary judgment for insurer on ERISA claim for miscalculation of benefits, the court held that the statute of limitations runs from the date of initial benefit calculation and not from the date of each payment made pursuant to that calculation (here monthly)
- US District Court ME: The shortest decision I’ve seen denying a motion for summary judgment in a Maine Human Rights Act case
- Maine Legislature: New bills printed, including LD 1805, which would repeal the requirements in Title 20-A related to the promotion of gender equity for women in public school administration
- EEOC: Two new technical assistance publications addressing workplace rights and responsibilities with respect to religious dress and grooming under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Bangor Daily: Maine Judiciary Committee endorses bill to spend $15 million in bonds for electronic filing system
Monday, March 3, 2014
- Law Court: In affirming judgment on jury verdict for plaintiff on claim under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, the court modified its earlier interpretation of the WPA in Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A. that the illegal or unsafe activity reported by employee had to be committed or practiced by plaintiff’s employer as follows: the report must address violations, conditions, or practices that the employer has the ability and authority to correct, and those violations, conditions, or practices complained of must bear a direct relationship to the employee’s current employer. In other words, the reported offending conduct must be reported by a person who is then an employee and must be connected to the employer in such a way that the employer could take corrective action to effectuate a relevant change.
- Law Court: The court affirmed the dismissal as moot an 80B appeal by the Hancock County Sheriff that the Hancock County Commissioners exceeded their authority in requiring a deputy to pay a $1000 deductible for damage to a cruiser when the deputy struck a deer where the Commissioners later rescinded their decision to collect the deductible.
- First Circuit: In affirming dismissal of petition for declaratory relief regarding the preclusive effect of a prior arbitration, the court held that a dispute over the preclusive effect of a prior arbitration is itself arbitrable as opposed to being a matter for the federal court to decide, even when an arbitration decision is confirmed by a federal court order
- US District Court ME: In denying 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss deceased mechanic’s asbestos exposure claim, the court held that the complaint did not need to identify the specific products that caused the injury because it plausibly alleges that his injuries were caused by the ingestion of asbestos fibers emanating from multiple products by multiple manufacturers over a lengthy period of time
- Maine Legislature: Public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, March 4, 2014, at 2:15 PM, in the Judiciary Committee Room 438, State House, on LD 1789, An Act To Modernize and Improve the Efficiency of Maine’s Courts, which would authorize the Maine Governmental Facilities Authority to issue additional securities in an amount not to exceed $15,000,000 to fund the planning, purchasing, customizing and implementing of a case management, data storage and electronic filing system for the judicial branch in order to increase court efficiency and improve public service and safety
- MHRC: The Commission posted its March 31, 2014, Commission Meeting Agenda
- US Dept. of Labor: Letter to the Maine Department of Labor following review of Maine Unemployment Compensation Program cites legitimate concerns about the first-level appeals and pressure from the Governor for hearing officers to be more sympathetic to employers
- Bangor Daily: State Supreme Court: Man wrongly fired for saying Baldacci violated safety rules
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
- US Supreme Court: In dismissing Fourth Amendment claim against police officer for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court held that plaintiff could not establish jurisdiction over police officer in Nevada based on plaintiff experiencing a delay in the return of gambling funds there when the allegedly unlawful seizure occurred in Georgia and police officer had no other contacts with Nevada
- US District Court ME: In denying 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings in negligence action, court held that there were sufficient allegations that UPS and FedEx breached a duty of care by installing drop boxes in a defective border section of a public sidewalk that consisted of uneven bricks
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
- Seventh Circuit: The court entered judgment for plaintiffs on stipulated facts, finding that public high school policy of requiring boys playing interscholastic basketball to keep their hair cut short, without any comparable grooming standards for girls, violated the equal protection clause and Title IX
- Ninth Circuit: The court reversed, in part, summary judgment for defendants in claims arising out of municipal police officers fatally shooting a woman with mental illness in her home after she threatened them with a knife, finding plaintiff presented a triable issue under the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable use of deadly force under a provocation theory and under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (which the court held applies to arrests) for failing to reasonably accommodate plaintiff’s disability by employing generally accepted police practices for peaceably resolving a confrontation with a person with mental illness
- Fourth Circuit: The court reversed summary judgment for defendant because the complaint adequately pled factual allegations supporting claim for bystander liability under §1983 despite the absence of the words “bystander liability” in the complaint
- EEOC: Press release announces that the EEOC is seeking public comment (comment deadline April 25, 2014) on significant revisions to Management Directive 110 (MD-110), which provides federal agencies with EEO policies, procedures and guidance related to newly revised 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (federal sector EEO regulations)
- Bangor Daily: Human rights panel clears Camden inn of discrimination
Friday, February 21, 2014
- District Court ME: In granting permanent injunction that City of Portland not enforce provision in ordinance prohibiting sitting or standing on a median other than to cross the road (designed to restrict panhandling), the court held that the ordinance was a content-based restriction on free speech because the Chief of Police and the Director of Public Services interpreted the ordinance as permitting people to access the median to place campaign signs on them yet all other reforms of free speech (including panhandling) were forbidden
- Sixth Circuit: In reversing summary judgment for employer on Title VII claim brought by African American woman, the court held that plaintiff established prima-facie case of race discrimination because she was replaced by an Hispanic woman and sex discrimination because emails from her former supervisor referred to her as a “prima donna” and a “hellava bitch”; and that there was insufficient evidence under “honest belief doctrine” that employer fired plaintiff because she had lied where employer only interviewed one person during investigation
- Maine House follows Senate in rejecting ‘religious freedom’ bill
Thursday, February 20, 2014
- Federal Transit Administration: The FTA issued four additional proposed chapters to its guidance Circular intended to assist transportation providers in meeting the requirements of the Department of Transportation ADA regulations (comment deadline: April 21, 2014)
- Bangor Daily: State settles lawsuit filed by family of Sangerville man shot by trooper
Wednesday, Febuary 19, 2014
- First Circuit: In reversing 12(b)(6) dismissal, the court held that Title VII non-retaliation provision prohibits discrimination because plaintiff filed §1983 sex discrimination complaint over conduct that was also prohibited by Title VII, even though Title VII was not mentioned in earlier complaint, and that retaliatory acts about which plaintiff had personal knowledge only needed to be described in complaint “in sufficient detail to make them plausible” even if exact details such as dates and precise context were not alleged
- Bangor Daily: Maine Senate rejects long-debated ‘religious freedom’ bill
Monday, February 17, 2014
- Ninth Circuit: In reversing dismissal of First Amendment claim against public elementary school that mandated school uniforms displaying the motto “Tomorrow’s Leaders,” the court recognized that the uniform policy compelled students to express a particular viewpoint that leadership should be celebrated and that the elementary school was likely to produce tomorrow’s leaders
- Bangor Daily: Employers be aware: National Labor Relations Board turns focus to nonunionized workplaces
Friday, February 14, 2014
- Law Court: In affirming judgment on jury verdict for nursing home in negligence action arising out of resident’s fall (and subsequent death) that could have been prevented if glove dispensers had been installed in bathrooms or staff had been instruced to carry gloves, the court held that evidence that the nursing home subsequently installed glove dispensers and instructed staff to wear gloves was properly excluded as “subsequent remedial measures” because nursing home conceded the feasibility of doing so at trial and contrary evidence was only elicited during cross examination of defendant’s witness by plaintiff’s attorney
- US District Court ME: In granting plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a “collective action” for unpaid overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards Act, the court held that plaintiffs had met their required “modest factual showing” of a reasonable basis for their claim that there are other similarly situated employees and ordered defendant to provide plaintiffs with all potential opt-in plaintiffs’ names, last known mailing addresses, and dates of employment in order for plaintiffs to provide them notice and opt-in consent forms
