actionable claim in Maine

2015Factors to be reviewed in considering whether an actionable claim for a hostile work environment exists include "the frequency of the conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Doyle v. Department of Human Services, 2003 ME 61 ~ 23, 824 A.2d 48 .

2015Factors to be reviewed in considering whether an actionable claim for a hostile work environment exists include "the frequency of the conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." Doyle v. Department of Human Services, 2003 ME 61 ~ 23, 824 A.2d 48 .

2011In this case, the plaintiff proved and the jury found such a causal connection between Polstein’s discriminatory animus and the adverse employment action taken by the Town. “[W]e will not substitute our judgment as to the weight or credibility of the evidence for that of the fact-finder if there is evidence in the record to rationally support the trial court’s result.” State v. Connor, 2009 ME 91, ¶ 9 , 977 A.2d 1003 .

2011In this case, the plaintiff proved and the jury found such a causal connection between Polstein’s discriminatory animus and the adverse employment action taken by the Town. “[W]e will not substitute our judgment as to the weight or credibility of the evidence for that of the fact-finder if there is evidence in the record to rationally support the trial court’s result.” State v. Connor, 2009 ME 91, ¶ 9 , 977 A.2d 1003 .

2004If the plaintiff presents insufficient evidence on an essential element of the cause of action, such that “ ‘the defendant would ... be entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that state of the evidence at a trial, the defendant is entitled to a summary judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Carleton, 2001 ME 12, ¶ 11 , 765 A.2d 571, 575 ). [¶ 15] Accordingly, we must decide whether the facts presented in the parties’ statements of material facts and the supporting evidentiary materials, with disputes resolved in Scott’s favor, establish an actionable claim under the ADA and the MHRA.

2004If the plaintiff presents insufficient evidence on an essential element of the cause of action, such that “ ‘the defendant would ... be entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that state of the evidence at a trial, the defendant is entitled to a summary judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Carleton, 2001 ME 12, ¶ 11 , 765 A.2d 571, 575 ). [¶ 15] Accordingly, we must decide whether the facts presented in the parties’ statements of material facts and the supporting evidentiary materials, with disputes resolved in Scott’s favor, establish an actionable claim under the ADA and the MHRA.

2003Potter, Prescott, Jamieson & Nelson, P.A., v. Campbell, 1998 ME 70 , { 7, 708 A.2d 283, 286 .

2003Potter, Prescott, Jamieson & Nelson, P.A., v. Campbell, 1998 ME 70 , { 7, 708 A.2d 283, 286 .

2003She was clearly alleging intentional acts of intimidation on the part of Michaud, thereby stating an actionable claim pursuant to section 4651(2)(A) of the protection from harassment statute. [¶ 11] Although Michaud argues that Staples’s complaint was insufficient because what Staples characterized as “threats” were mere “warnings,” it is Staples’s allegations that we must examine to determine whether she has “set forth elements of a cause of action or facts that might entitle her to relief.” Napieralski, 2002 ME 108, ¶ 4 , 802 A.2d at 392 .

2003She was clearly alleging intentional acts of intimidation on the part of Michaud, thereby stating an actionable claim pursuant to section 4651(2)(A) of the protection from harassment statute. [¶ 11] Although Michaud argues that Staples’s complaint was insufficient because what Staples characterized as “threats” were mere “warnings,” it is Staples’s allegations that we must examine to determine whether she has “set forth elements of a cause of action or facts that might entitle her to relief.” Napieralski, 2002 ME 108, ¶ 4 , 802 A.2d at 392 .

1980Although the decisions from which the informed consent doctrine developed were cases that imposed liability for unauthorized treatment on a theory of battery, 10 it is now settled, as we recognized in Downer v. Veilleux, supra, that despite the jurisprudential roots of the doctrine actions based on lack of informed consent sound in negligence and not in battery. 322 A.2d at 89-90 .

1980Although the decisions from which the informed consent doctrine developed were cases that imposed liability for unauthorized treatment on a theory of battery, 10 it is now settled, as we recognized in Downer v. Veilleux, supra, that despite the jurisprudential roots of the doctrine actions based on lack of informed consent sound in negligence and not in battery. 322 A.2d at 89-90 .

1934Albee v. LaRoux, 122 Me., 273, 119 A., 626 .” In view of the law enunciated in the cases just cited, the Court directed rightly a verdict for the defendant for acceptance of the facts, both as alleged and proved by the plaintiffs, could not constitute an actionable claim on which to base this form of action.