Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 26
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833 (2026)

Discrimination against certain employees prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REALLOCATED FROM TITLE 26, SECTION 823)
1.  Discrimination prohibited.  No employer may discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location or privileges of employment because:  
A. The employee, acting in good faith, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports orally or in writing to the employer or a public body what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of a law or rule adopted under the laws of this State, a political subdivision of this State or the United States;   [PL 1987, c. 782, §4 (NEW).]
B. The employee, acting in good faith, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports to the employer or a public body, orally or in writing, what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a condition or practice that would put at risk the health or safety of that employee or any other individual. The protection from discrimination provided in this section specifically includes school personnel who report safety concerns to school officials with regard to a violent or disruptive student;   [PL 1999, c. 351, §7 (AMD).]
C. The employee is requested to participate in an investigation, hearing or inquiry held by that public body, or in a court action;   [PL 2003, c. 306, §1 (AMD).]
D. The employee acting in good faith has refused to carry out a directive to engage in activity that would be a violation of a law or rule adopted under the laws of this State, a political subdivision of this State or the United States or that would expose the employee or any individual to a condition that would result in serious injury or death, after having sought and been unable to obtain a correction of the illegal activity or dangerous condition from the employer; or   [PL 2003, c. 688, Pt. A, §27 (RPR).]
E. The employee, acting in good faith and consistent with state and federal privacy laws, reports to the employer, to the patient involved or to the appropriate licensing, regulating or credentialing authority, orally or in writing, what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is an act or omission that constitutes a deviation from the applicable standard of care for a patient by an employer charged with the care of that patient. For purposes of this paragraph, "employer" means a health care provider, health care practitioner or health care entity as defined in Title 24, section 2502.   [PL 2003, c. 306, §2 (NEW).]
[PL 2003, c. 688, Pt. A, §27 (AMD).]
2.  Initial report to employer required; exception.  Subsection 1 does not apply to an employee who has reported or caused to be reported a violation, or unsafe condition or practice to a public body, unless the employee has first brought the alleged violation, condition or practice to the attention of a person having supervisory authority with the employer and has allowed the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct that violation, condition or practice.  
Prior notice to an employer is not required if the employee has specific reason to believe that reports to the employer will not result in promptly correcting the violation, condition or practice.  
[PL 1987, c. 782, §4 (NEW).]
3.  Reports of suspected abuse.  An employee required to report suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation under Title 22, section 3477 or 4011‑A, shall follow the requirements of those sections under those circumstances. No employer may discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location or privileges of employment because the employee followed the requirements of those sections.  
[PL 2001, c. 345, §7 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1983, c. 452 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 583, §15 (RAL). PL 1987, c. 782, §4 (RPR). PL 1999, c. 351, §7 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 345, §7 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 306, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 357, §1 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 688, §A27 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 126 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Claire Trott v. H.D. Goodall Hosp., 2013 ME 33 (Me. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Claire Trott v. H.D. Goodall Hosp., 2013 ME 33 (Me. 2013). · cites it 12× “6 Furthermore, by not protecting deposition content, section 833(1)(C) prevents employees from immunizing themselves against an employer’s response to the employee’s unacceptable behavior by simply testifying to that behavior during the course of a deposition.”
Theriault v. Genesis Healthcare LLC, 890 F.3d 342 (1st Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “3 Her complaint alleged that Genesis had flouted the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 26, § 833 , and had defamed her.”
Roy v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, 914 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “§ 4572(1) (making unlawful discrimination based on whistleblower activity); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 26, § 833 (1)(A)-(B) (defining protected whistleblower activity as reporting "a violation of a [state or federal] law or rule" or "a condition or practice that would put at risk…”
Fuhrmann v. Staples the Off. Superstore East, Inc., 58 A.3d 1083 (Me. 2012). · cites it 5× “The WPA’s anti-whistleblower discrimination provision, 26 M.R.S. § 833(1) (2011), similarly applies to "employer[s].”
LePage v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 2006 ME 130 (Me. 2006). · cites it 6× “[3] Title 26 M.R.S. § 833 (2005) provides in pertinent part: 1.”
Stewart-Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass'n, 2011 ME 26 (Me. 2011). · cites it 5× “26 M.R.S. § 833(1). An employee is also protected when she reports a deviation from the applicable standard of patient care.”
Stanley v. Hancock Cnty. Commissioners, 2004 ME 157 (Me. 2004). · cites it 3× “Whistleblowers' Protection Act [¶ 11] "To prevail on a claim of unlawful retaliation pursuant to the [Whistleblowers' Protection Act], an employee must show (1) that she engaged in activity protected by the WPA, (2) that she experienced an adverse employment action, and (3) that…”
Richard C. Hickson v. Vescom Corp., 2014 ME 27 (Me. 2014). · cites it 6× “26 M.R.S. § 833(1). Subsection 1 does not apply to an employee who has reported or caused to be reported a violation, or unsafe condition or practice to a public body, unless the employee has first brought the alleged violation, condition or practice to the attention of a person…”
Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation Dist., 332 F. Supp. 3d 316 (D. Me. 2018). · cites it 4× “26 M.R.S.A. § 833(1). Of relevance to this matter, protected activity includes, (1) making a good faith report to the employer regarding what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of law; (2) making a good faith report to *356 the employer regarding what…”
Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 2008 ME 142 (Me. 2008). · cites it 3× “§§ 4572(1)(A), 4621 (2002); 26 M.R.S.A. § 833 (1988 & Supp.2002); Schlear v.”
Roland Pushard III v. Riverview Psychiatric Ctr., 2020 ME 23 (Me. 2020). · cites it 4× “¶ 14; see 26 M.R.S. § 833(1). “If the evidence in the summary judgment record would allow a jury to find for the employee on each element of the employee’s case, then the employer is not entitled to summary judgment.”
Currie v. Indus. Sec., Inc., 2007 ME 12 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “Title 26 M.R.S. § 833(1)(A) (2005) provides: 1.”
Show all 126 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(1) — 27 cases
LePage v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 2006 ME 130 (Me. 2006). “[3] Title 26 M.R.S. § 833 (2005) provides in pertinent part: 1.”
Danielle Sullivan v. St. Joseph's Rehab. & Residence, 2016 ME 107 (Me. 2016).
Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation Dist., 332 F. Supp. 3d 316 (D. Me. 2018). “26 M.R.S.A. § 833(1). Of relevance to this matter, protected activity includes, (1) making a good faith report to the employer regarding what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of law; (2) making a good faith report to *356 the employer regarding what…”
Stanley v. Hancock Cnty. Commissioners, 2004 ME 157 (Me. 2004). “Whistleblowers' Protection Act [¶ 11] "To prevail on a claim of unlawful retaliation pursuant to the [Whistleblowers' Protection Act], an employee must show (1) that she engaged in activity protected by the WPA, (2) that she experienced an adverse employment action, and (3) that…”
DiCentes v. Michaud, 1998 ME 227 (Me. 1998).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(1)(A) — 65 cases
Fuhrmann v. Staples the Off. Superstore East, Inc., 58 A.3d 1083 (Me. 2012). “The WPA’s anti-whistleblower discrimination provision, 26 M.R.S. § 833(1) (2011), similarly applies to "employer[s].”
Claire Trott v. H.D. Goodall Hosp., 2013 ME 33 (Me. 2013). “6 Furthermore, by not protecting deposition content, section 833(1)(C) prevents employees from immunizing themselves against an employer’s response to the employee’s unacceptable behavior by simply testifying to that behavior during the course of a deposition.”
Stanley v. Hancock Cnty. Commissioners, 2004 ME 157 (Me. 2004). “Whistleblowers' Protection Act [¶ 11] "To prevail on a claim of unlawful retaliation pursuant to the [Whistleblowers' Protection Act], an employee must show (1) that she engaged in activity protected by the WPA, (2) that she experienced an adverse employment action, and (3) that…”
Bard v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 590 A.2d 152 (Me. 1991).
Santina Caruso v. The Jackson Lab'y, 2014 ME 101 (Me. 2014).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(1)(B) — 21 cases
Stewart-Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass'n, 2011 ME 26 (Me. 2011). “26 M.R.S. § 833(1). An employee is also protected when she reports a deviation from the applicable standard of patient care.”
Roland Pushard III v. Riverview Psychiatric Ctr., 2020 ME 23 (Me. 2020). “¶ 14; see 26 M.R.S. § 833(1). “If the evidence in the summary judgment record would allow a jury to find for the employee on each element of the employee’s case, then the employer is not entitled to summary judgment.”
Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation Dist., 332 F. Supp. 3d 316 (D. Me. 2018). “26 M.R.S.A. § 833(1). Of relevance to this matter, protected activity includes, (1) making a good faith report to the employer regarding what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of law; (2) making a good faith report to *356 the employer regarding what…”
Karen Cormier v. Genesis Healthcare LLC, 2015 ME 161 (Me. 2015).
DiCentes v. Michaud, 1998 ME 227 (Me. 1998).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(1)(C) — 5 cases
Claire Trott v. H.D. Goodall Hosp., 2013 ME 33 (Me. 2013). “6 Furthermore, by not protecting deposition content, section 833(1)(C) prevents employees from immunizing themselves against an employer’s response to the employee’s unacceptable behavior by simply testifying to that behavior during the course of a deposition.”
Pamela G. Argereow v. Verne M. Weisberg, M.D., 2018 ME 140 (Me. 2018).
Richard C. Hickson v. Vescom Corp., 2014 ME 27 (Me. 2014). “26 M.R.S. § 833(1). Subsection 1 does not apply to an employee who has reported or caused to be reported a violation, or unsafe condition or practice to a public body, unless the employee has first brought the alleged violation, condition or practice to the attention of a person…”
Halkett v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 763 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D. Me. 2011).
Argereow v. Weisberg (Me. Super. Ct 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(1)(D) — 3 cases
Connolly v. Dorris (D. Me. 2020).
Stowe v. Cumberland Farms Inc (D. Me. 2023).
Enos v. Orthopedic & Spine Physical Therapy of L/A, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2015).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(1)(E) — 2 cases
Stewart-Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass'n, 2011 ME 26 (Me. 2011). “26 M.R.S. § 833(1). An employee is also protected when she reports a deviation from the applicable standard of patient care.”
Lennan v. Healthcare Serv. Grp. Inc (D. Me. 2022).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(2) — 13 cases
Richard C. Hickson v. Vescom Corp., 2014 ME 27 (Me. 2014). “26 M.R.S. § 833(1). Subsection 1 does not apply to an employee who has reported or caused to be reported a violation, or unsafe condition or practice to a public body, unless the employee has first brought the alleged violation, condition or practice to the attention of a person…”
Currie v. Indus. Sec., Inc., 2007 ME 12 (Me. 2007). “Title 26 M.R.S. § 833(1)(A) (2005) provides: 1.”
Stewart-Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass'n, 2011 ME 26 (Me. 2011). “26 M.R.S. § 833(1). An employee is also protected when she reports a deviation from the applicable standard of patient care.”
Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 2008 ME 142 (Me. 2008). “§§ 4572(1)(A), 4621 (2002); 26 M.R.S.A. § 833 (1988 & Supp.2002); Schlear v.”
Daigle v. STULC, 794 F. Supp. 2d 194 (D. Me. 2011).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(3) — 3 cases
Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 2008 ME 142 (Me. 2008). “§§ 4572(1)(A), 4621 (2002); 26 M.R.S.A. § 833 (1988 & Supp.2002); Schlear v.”
Dudley v. Augusta Sch. Dep't, 23 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D. Me. 1998).
Pippin v. Boulevard Motel Corp., 121 F. Supp. 3d 230 (D. Me. 2015).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(4) — 1 case
Connolly v. Henrietta D. Goodall Hosp. (Me. Super. Ct 2006).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(A) — 2 cases
Aldus v. Princeton Props. Mgmt., Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
Buitrago v. Custom Hearing, LLC (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(B) — 1 case
Fazeli, Md v. Northbridge Stroudwater Lodge II LLC (D. Me. 2023).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(C) — 1 case
Argereow v. Weisberg (Me. Super. Ct 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(l)(A) — 2 cases
Handlin v. Broadreach Pub. Relations, LLC (Me. Super. Ct 2021).
MacLean v. City of Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2022).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(l)(A)(B) — 1 case
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Saddleback, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2008).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 833(l)(B) — 1 case
Theriault v. Hi Tech Insulation Svs. (Me. Super. Ct 2011).
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.