Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 218 (2026)

Worker reinstatement rights

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Upon petition of an injured employee, the board may require, after hearing, that the employee be reinstated as required by this section.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
1.  Reinstatement rights.  When an employee has suffered a compensable injury, the employee is entitled, upon request, to reinstatement to the employee's former position if the position is available and suitable to the employee's physical condition. If the employee's former position is not available or suitable, the employee is entitled, upon request, to reinstatement to any other available position suitable to the employee's physical condition.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
2.  Reasonable accommodation required.  In order to facilitate the placement of an injured employee as required under this section, the employer must make reasonable accommodations for the physical condition of the employee unless the employer can demonstrate that no reasonable accommodation exists or that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer. In determining whether undue hardship exists, the board shall consider:  
A. The size of the employer's business;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
B. The number of employees employed by the employer;   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
C. The nature of the employer's operations; and   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
D. Any other relevant factors.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
3.  Time period; discrimination prohibited.  The employer's obligation to reinstate the employee continues until 2 years, or 3 years if the employer has over 200 employees, after the date of the injury. An employer who reinstates an employee under this section may not subsequently discriminate against that employee in any employment decision, including decisions related to tenure, promotion, transfer or reemployment following a layoff, because of the employee's assertion of a claim or right under this Act. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to limit any protection offered to an employee by section 353.  
[PL 2013, c. 63, §7 (AMD).]
4.  Limitations.  This section does not obligate an employer to offer an injured employee employment or reemployment in:  
A. Supervisory or confidential positions within the meaning of the 29 United States Code, Section 152; or   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
B. Any position for which the employee is not qualified.   [PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
5.  Failure to comply.  The employer's failure to comply with the obligations under this section disqualifies the employer or insurance carrier from exercising any right it may otherwise have to reduce or terminate the employee's benefits under this Act. The disqualification continues as long as the employer fails to offer reinstatement or until the employee accepts other employment.  
If any injured employee refuses to accept an offer of reinstatement for a position suitable to the employee's physical condition, the employee is considered to have voluntarily withdrawn from the work force and is no longer entitled to any wage loss benefits under this Act during the period of refusal.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
6.  Burden of proof.  The petitioning party has the burden of proof on all issues regarding claims under this section except that the employer always retains the burden of proof regarding the availability or nonavailability of work.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
7.  Rehabilitation plans.  All obligations under this section are suspended during the implementation of a rehabilitation plan under section 217.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
8.  Foreign workers.  If an employee is prevented from accepting an offer of reinstatement because of residence in a foreign country or termination of status as a lawfully employable alien, the employee is deemed to have refused the offer.  
[PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §8 (NEW); PL 1991, c. 885, Pt. A, §§9-11 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1991, c. 885, §A8 (NEW). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF). PL 2013, c. 63, §7 (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 11 cases, 1993–2012 · leading case: Daniels v. Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility, 2012 ME 80 (Me. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Daniels v. Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility, 2012 ME 80 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “[5] Daniels was receiving workers' compensation benefits, but the record does not indicate whether he requested that he be allowed to return to work pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 218 (2011). [6] In Daniels's first Maine Human Rights Commission complaint, he named only Narraguagus.”
Thompson v. Claw Island Foods, 1998 ME 101 (Me. 1998). · cites it 5× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 218 [¶ 4] Claw Island contends that, even if it were not entitled to terminate benefits pursuant to subsection 214(1)(A), the termination was permissible pursuant to 39-A M.”
Jandreau v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2003 ME 134 (Me. 2003). · cites it 3× “Employer’s Obligation to Accommodate an Employee’s Work Restrictions [¶ 14] Relying on 39-A M.R.S.A. § 218 (2001), Jandreau contends that although she cannot return to her pre-injury job and cannot perform the alternative job that was offered to her, Shaw’s has a duty to take…”
Longtin v. City of Lewiston, 1998 ME 90 (Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “” [II4] In September 1994, Longtin filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A § 218 (Supp.1997). 1 In response, the Fire Department offered him a full-time position as a fire inspector paying close to his pre-injury wage.”
Morgan-Leland v. Univ. of Maine, 632 A.2d 748 (Me. 1993). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 218(3) (Pamph.1993). Because the University had more than two hundred employees and more than three years had elapsed since the date of Morgan-Leland’s injury, the Board dismissed her petition.”
Laskey v. Sappi Fine Paper, 2003 ME 48 (Me. 2003). “§§ 12101-12213 (1995 & Supp.2002). Accordingly, nothing in this opinion addresses whether the facts in this case may or may not give rise to a claim under either the Maine Humans Right Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
Doughty v. Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Grp., 33 A.3d 410 (Me. 2011). “Work Opportunities may be able to provide monetary benefits through its insurance carrier, and in such cases it would not make any difference to Doughty; however, Work Opportunities’ insurance carrier cannot replace Poland Spring’s underlying obligation for certain workers’…”
Dahms v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Maine, 782 A.2d 774 (Me. 2001). “S.A. § 306 (2001), is also expressly inapplicable to injuries prior to 1993, and, therefore does not apply.”
Lavoie v. Re-Harvest, Inc., 973 A.2d 760 (Me. 2009). “39-A M.R.S. § 218 (2008). Lavoie, however, did not file such a petition for reinstatement likely because he was unable to work for many months after the injury.”
Knapp v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd. (Me. Super. Ct 2004). · cites it 2× “” In addition, the petitioner alleges that MEMIC knew she had been fired from her job but misrepresented this knowledge to petitioner so as to deny petitioner a remedy under 39-A M.R.S.A. § 218. However, the record shows that the Hearing Officer was justified in finding that the…”
Buckley v. S.D. Warren Co., 54 A.3d 1274 (Me. 2012). “Warren contended that for each injury, Buckley’s permanent impairment level did not exceed the applicable threshold for duration-of-disability benefits and therefore the partial benefits awarded for each injury are subject to the time *1276 limit set forth in 39-A M.R.S. §…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 218(1) — 1 case
Buckley v. S.D. Warren Co., 54 A.3d 1274 (Me. 2012). “Warren contended that for each injury, Buckley’s permanent impairment level did not exceed the applicable threshold for duration-of-disability benefits and therefore the partial benefits awarded for each injury are subject to the time *1276 limit set forth in 39-A M.R.S. §…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 218(3) — 1 case
Morgan-Leland v. Univ. of Maine, 632 A.2d 748 (Me. 1993). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 218(3) (Pamph.1993). Because the University had more than two hundred employees and more than three years had elapsed since the date of Morgan-Leland’s injury, the Board dismissed her petition.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 218(5) — 2 cases
Thompson v. Claw Island Foods, 1998 ME 101 (Me. 1998). “39-A M.R.S.A. § 218 [¶ 4] Claw Island contends that, even if it were not entitled to terminate benefits pursuant to subsection 214(1)(A), the termination was permissible pursuant to 39-A M.”
Longtin v. City of Lewiston, 1998 ME 90 (Me. 1998). “” [II4] In September 1994, Longtin filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A § 218 (Supp.1997). 1 In response, the Fire Department offered him a full-time position as a fire inspector paying close to his pre-injury wage.”
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.