Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fuhrmann V. Staples Office Superstore East, Inc.: A Split In The Law Court As To The Definition Of "Employer" Demonstrates The Need For Legislative Action To Amend The Maine Human Rights Act In Order To Protect Maine Employees, Stephen B. Segal
Maine Law Review
In Fuhrmann v. Staples Office Superstore East, Inc., Jamie Fuhrmann submitted a complaint to the Maine Human Rights Commission (Commission) against her former employer, Staples Office Superstore East, Inc. (Staples), and four of her individual supervisors. After the Commission granted her right to sue, she filed a complaint in court alleging whistleblower retaliation under the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) and the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), as well as sex discrimination under the MHRA. The Superior Court granted Staples’ motion for summary judgment on all counts, and granted the four supervisors’ motions to dismiss on the grounds that individual supervisor …
Is It Safe To Speak Up Now? Evaluating The Expansion Of Whistleblower Protection Act Jurisdiction, Gil Landau
Is It Safe To Speak Up Now? Evaluating The Expansion Of Whistleblower Protection Act Jurisdiction, Gil Landau
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
Whistleblowers have uncovered billions of dollars of fraud and severe national security threats. Nonetheless, for many years, federal employee whistleblowers faced retaliation and termination. Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) in an attempt to protect federal employee whistleblowers. But, the exclusive court for WPA appeals, the Federal Circuit, ignored Congressional intent and limited the WPA’s protections. In 2013, Congress responded by creating a five year experiment, known as “all circuit review,” to determine if WPA claims should also be appealable to the regional circuits. Over the past three years, all circuit review has led to modest changes in WPA …
Trott V. H.D. Goodall Hospital: When Analyzing Employment Discrimination Cases Under Maine Law, Should Maine Courts Continue To Apply The Mcdonnell Douglas Analysis At The Summary Judgment Stage?, Ari B. Solotoff
Maine Law Review
Since 2003, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has applied the Supreme Court’s McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis on summary judgment in employment discrimination claims brought under Maine law. Recently, however, some justices of the Law Court have questioned McDonnell Douglas’s continuing application to summary judgment determinations. They argue that the framework is outdated, overly mechanical, and unnecessary. In Trott v. H.D. Goodall Hospital, the court set forth three guiding principles for lawyers and judges to follow in employment discrimination cases facing disposition at summary judgment. In doing so, the court signaled that McDonnell Douglas should continue to be applied at summary …