Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 631 (2026)

Employee right to review personnel file

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The employer shall, upon written request from an employee or former employee, provide the employee, former employee or duly authorized representative with an opportunity to review and copy the employee's personnel file if the employer has a personnel file for that employee. The reviews and copying must take place at the location where the personnel files are maintained and during normal office hours unless, at the employer's discretion, a more convenient time and location for the employee are arranged. In each calendar year, the employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, one copy of the entire personnel file when requested by the employee or former employee and, when requested by the employee or former employee, one copy of all the material added to the personnel file after the copy of the entire file was provided. The cost of copying any other material requested during that calendar year is paid by the person requesting the copy. For the purpose of this section, a personnel file includes, but is not limited to, any formal or informal employee evaluations and reports relating to the employee's character, credit, work habits, compensation and benefits and nonprivileged medical records or nurses' station notes relating to the employee that the employer has in the employer's possession. Records in a personnel file may be maintained in any form including paper, microfiche or electronic form. The employer shall take adequate steps to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of these records. An employer maintaining records in a form other than paper shall have available to the employee, former employee or duly authorized representative the equipment necessary to review and copy the personnel file. Any employer who, following a request pursuant to this section, without good cause fails to provide an opportunity for review and copying of a personnel file, within 10 days of receipt of that request, is subject to a civil forfeiture of $25 for each day that a failure continues. The total forfeiture may not exceed $500. An employee, former employee or the Department of Labor may bring an action in the District Court or the Superior Court for such equitable relief, including an injunction, as the court may consider to be necessary and proper. The employer may also be required to reimburse the employee, former employee or the Department of Labor for costs of suit including a reasonable attorney's fee if the employee or the department receives a judgment in the employee's or department's favor, respectively. For the purposes of this section, the term "nonprivileged medical records or nurses' station notes" means all those materials that have not been found to be protected from discovery or disclosure in the course of civil litigation under the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26, the Maine Rules of Evidence, Article V or similar rules adopted by the Workers' Compensation Board or other administrative tribunals.   [PL 2003, c. 58, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 694, §2 (NEW). PL 1979, c. 66, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 178 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 105 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 885, §D2 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 420, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 235, §1 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 58, §1 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Harding v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 ME 13 (Me. 2001).
Harding v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 ME 13 (Me. 2001). · cites it 9× “Wal-Mart contends that the court erred in concluding that internal investigative files are part of an employee’s personnel file pursuant to 26 M.R.S.A. § 631 (Supp.2000). We affirm the judgment.”
Cleghorn v. Hess, 853 P.2d 1260 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “5 (West 1991); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 26, § 631 (West 1992); Mich.”
Brown v. Bank of Am., N.A., 5 F. Supp. 3d 121 (D. Me. 2014). · cites it 3× “Me.Rev.Stat. tit. 26, § 631. A. Position of the Parties Aetna argues that the plain language of the statute imposes liability on “employer[s],” not on benefit claims administrators.”
Deanna Dorsey v. N. Light Health, 2022 ME 62 (Me. 2022). “§§ 664, 670 (2022); and (3) produce certain documents deemed part of her personnel file, see 26 M.R.S. § 631 (2022). Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on July 21, 2021.”
Richard C. Hickson v. Vescom Corp., 2014 ME 27 (Me. 2014). “Hickson also alleged that Vescom had illegally failed to provide him with a copy of his personnel file within ten days after receiving his request in violation of 26 M.R.S. § 631 (2013). Hickson did not, however, pursue this claim at trial after the court granted summary…”
Davis v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 212 F.R.D. 432 (D. Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “Discussion The plaintiff contends that she is entitled to production of the documents at issue because (i) they are essential to the preparation of her case and she cannot obtain the substantial equivalent of these materials by any other means; (ii) she has a statutory right to…”
Est. of Carol A. Kennelly v. Mid Coast Hosp., 2020 ME 115 (Me. 2020). “The trial court found that the Estate’s discovery request was “[m]ore than a mere fishing expedition for irrelevant surgical errors in other surgeries” and sought “to better establish what procedures would be consistent with the compelling production of the personnel file does…”
Lewis v. Good Will Home Ass'n (Me. Super. Ct 2007). · cites it 11× “Violation of 26 M.R.S.A. § 631 (Count II) 1. Personnel File and 26 MR.”
Est. of Carol A. Kennelly v. Mid Coast Hosp., 2020 ME 115 (Me. 2020). “The trial court found that the Estate’s discovery request was “[m]ore than a mere fishing expedition for irrelevant surgical errors in other surgeries” and sought “to better establish what procedures would be consistent with the compelling production of the personnel file does…”
Kapothanasis v. Kapothanasis (Me. Super. Ct 2021). · cites it 3× “7 Motion to Seal Defendant has filed a motion to seal Exhibit 6 to the complaint, which is a copy of the 21-page investigative report written by Attorney Alvarez after concluding his investigation into the allegations of defendant's misconduct in the workplace.”
Pelletier v. Golden Rooster, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2021). · cites it 3× “26 M.R.S. § 631. "Any employer who, following a request pursuant to this section, without good cause fails to provide an 1 50% of $11 is $5.”
Connolly v. Dorris (D. Me. 2020). · cites it 2× “) Following a review of the pleadings and after consideration of the parties’ arguments, I recommend the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.