Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 5
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4552 (2026)

Policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
To protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is declared to be the policy of this State to keep continually in review all practices infringing on the basic human right to a life with dignity, and the causes of these practices, so that corrective measures may, where possible, be promptly recommended and implemented, and to prevent discrimination in employment, housing, education, extension of credit or access to public accommodations on account of an individual's actual or perceived race, color, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry or national origin and in employment, extension of credit and access to public accommodations on the basis of age; and in employment and housing on the basis of familial status; and in employment because of the previous assertion of a claim or right against a prior employer under former Title 39 or Title 39‑A and because of protected activity under Title 26, chapter 7, subchapter 5‑B; and to prevent discrimination or retaliation on the basis of an assertion of rights under this Act or interference with an individual's right to be free from discrimination prohibited under this Act.   [PL 2021, c. 366, §1 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1971, c. 501, §1 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 347, §1 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 705, §1 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 355, §1 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 358, §1 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 770, §28 (RPR). PL 1987, c. 478, §1 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 245, §1 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 99, §1 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 327, §1 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 10, §1 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 366, §1 (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 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: Fuhrmann v. Staples the Off. Superstore East, Inc., 58 A.3d 1083 (Me. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fuhrmann v. Staples the Off. Superstore East, Inc., 58 A.3d 1083 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “See 5 M.R.S. § 4552 (2011) (stating that policy of MHRA is “to prevent discrimination in employment” on prohibited bases and to ensure that “corrective measures may, where possible, be promptly recommended and implemented”); Bard v.”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Local 1361, United Paperworkers Int'l Union AFL-CIO, 383 A.2d 369 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S.A. § 4552. In the case now before us the interests of a labor union and the interests of Ms.”
Curran v. Portland Superintending Sch. Comm., 435 F. Supp. 1063 (D. Me. 1977). “Plainly, however, the analogous state statute of limitations is that contained in the Maine Human Rights Act (5 M.R.S.A. § 4552 et seq. (1973 Supp.)). That Act expressly provides that “[t]he opportunity for an individual to secure employment without discrimination because of sex…”
Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 37 (D. Me. 1996). “”); 5 M.R.S.A § 4552 (The MHRA prohibits “discrimination in employment, housing or access to public accommodations on account of race, color, sex, physical or mental handicap .”
King v. Bangor Fed. Credit Union, 568 A.2d 507 (Me. 1989). “5 M.R.S.A. §§ 4552, 4553(7-A). 2 While her Hitman Rights claim was pending before the Human Rights Commission, King settled her Workers’ Compensation claim on October 15, 1986.”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. City of Auburn, 425 A.2d 990 (Me. 1981). “The injunc-tive relief granted the Commission against the City of Auburn is the primary instrument for advancing that public policy, but that public goal must also be given consideration in determining the relief to be accorded private victims of unlawful sex discrimination.”
Maine Civil Liberties Union v. City of South Portland, 1999 ME 121 (Me. 1999). “sexual orientation,” 5 M.R.S.A. § 4552 (Supp.1997), effective pending the “People’s Veto” proceeding.”
Kopenga v. Davric Maine Corp., 1999 ME 65 (Me. 1999). “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 4552 (Pamph.1998). [¶24] In Tuttle v.”
In re Carol A. Boardman, 2017 ME 131 (Me. 2017). “5 M.R.S. §§ 4552, 4595-4596. Moreover, unmarried domestic partners are already afforded various legal benefits, regardless of their names.”
O'Leary v. Infrasource Transmission Servs. Co., 758 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D. Me. 2010). “O’Leary’s physical impairment “requires special education, vocational rehabilitation or related services”, 5 M.R.S. § 4552(7-A) (repealed June 21, 2007); 5 M.”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 770 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Me. 2011). “See 5 M.R.S. § 4552 (declaring it to be the policy of the state of Maine “to prevent discrimination .”
Bilodeau v. Mega Indus., 50 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Me. 1999). “”); 5 M.R.S.A. § 4552 (The MHRA prohibits “discrimination in employment, housing or access to public accommodations on account of race, color, sex, physical or mental handicap.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.