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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 353 (2026)

Discrimination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An employee may not be discriminated against by any employer in any way for testifying or asserting any claim under this Act. Any employee who is so discriminated against may file a petition alleging a violation of this section. The matter must be referred to an administrative law judge for a formal hearing under section 315, but any administrative law judge who has previously rendered any decision concerning the claim must be excluded. If the employee prevails at this hearing, the administrative law judge may award the employee reinstatement to the employee's previous job, payment of back wages, reestablishment of employee benefits and reasonable attorney's fees.   [PL 2015, c. 297, §20 (AMD).]
This section applies only to an employer against whom the employee has testified or asserted a claim under this Act. Discrimination by an employer who is not the same employer against whom the employee has testified or asserted a claim under this Act is governed by Title 5, section 4572, subsection 1, paragraph A.   [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 2015, c. 297, §20 (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 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: Laskey v. Sappi Fine Paper, 2003 ME 48 (Me. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Laskey v. Sappi Fine Paper, 2003 ME 48 (Me. 2003). · cites it 7× “39-A M.R.S.A. § 353 (2001). Laskey contends that his termination, pursuant to a policy which terminated employees with work restrictions as part of a downsizing program, constituted prohibited discrimination against him, violative of 39-A M.”
Maietta v. Town of Scarborough, 854 A.2d 223 (Me. 2004). · cites it 4× “[¶ 1] The Town of Scarborough appeals from a decision of a hearing officer of the Workers’ Compensation Board (McCurry, HO) granting Michael Maietta’s petition to remedy discrimination pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 353 (2001). The Town contends that the hearing officer exceeded…”
Doughty v. Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Grp., 33 A.3d 410 (Me. 2011). · cites it 6× “[¶ 1] Charles Doughty appeals from a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Board Hearing Officer (Collier; HO), granting his petition for award against Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Group, an employment agency, but denying his petitions to remedy discrimination pursuant to…”
Jandreau v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2003 ME 134 (Me. 2003). · cites it 4× “Shaw’s contends that it was error to conclude that its termination of Jandreau’s employment pursuant to a facially neutral six-month absenteeism policy constituted discrimination in violation of 39-A M.R.S.A. § 353 (2001). Jandreau contends that the hearing officer erred in…”
Soucy v. Sullivan & Merritt, 1999 ME 1 (Me. 1999). · cites it 3× “39-A M.R.S.A § 353 (Supp.1998). The Board concluded that, although there was evidence of discriminatory conduct arising after the date of settlement, Soucy waived his right to assert a claim for discrimination relating to prospective acts when he entered into a 1993 settlement…”
Leavitt v. SW & B Constr. Co., 766 F. Supp. 2d 263 (D. Me. 2011). “” 39-A M.R.S. § 353 (emphasis supplied). The ADA retaliation provision prohibits discrimination against “any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or…”
Lavoie v. Re-Harvest, Inc., 973 A.2d 760 (Me. 2009). · cites it 4× “We review whether an employer who terminates an employee who is unable to perform any work within weeks of a substantial work injury, but otherwise complies in full with the Act, has engaged in discrimination pursuant to 39-A M.R.S. § 353 (2008). On the facts found by the…”
Ngapey v. Granite Bay Care (Me. Super. Ct 2023). “Because the Act offers no mechanism for the Court’s review of such allegations, Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, which he has not alleged is exhausted, is the above-described mandatory administrative process. The Court has no authority to adjudicate Plaintiff's claim.”
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.