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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4602 (2026)

Unlawful educational discrimination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Unlawful educational discrimination.  It is unlawful educational discrimination in violation of this Act, on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, physical or mental disability, ancestry, national origin, race, color or religion, to:  
A. Exclude a person from participation in, deny a person the benefits of, or subject a person to, discrimination in any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training or other program or activity;   [PL 1985, c. 797, §1 (AMD).]
B. Deny a person equal opportunity in athletic programs;   [PL 1983, c. 578, §3 (NEW).]
C. Apply any rule concerning the actual or potential familial status or marital status of a person or to exclude any person from any program or activity because of pregnancy or related conditions or because of sex or sexual orientation or gender identity;   [PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (AMD).]
D. Deny a person admission to the institution or program or to fail to provide equal access to and information about an institution or program through recruitment; or   [PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (AMD).]
E. Deny a person financial assistance availability and opportunity.   [PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (AMD).]
[PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (AMD).]
2.  Unlawful educational discrimination on the basis of physical or mental disability. 
[PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (RP).]
3.  Unlawful educational discrimination on the basis of national origin or race. 
[PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (RP).]
4.  Unlawful education discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 
[PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (RP).]
5.  Application.  Nothing in this section:  
A. Requires an educational institution to provide separate athletic or other extracurricular programs to serve a person with a physical or mental disability;   [PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (NEW).]
B. May be construed to affect the rights of a person with a physical or mental disability to special education programs under state or federal law;   [PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (NEW).]
C. Requires a religious corporation, association or society that does not receive public funding to comply with this section as it relates to sexual orientation or gender identity; or   [PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (NEW).]
D. Requires an educational institution to participate in or endorse any religious beliefs or practices; to the extent that an educational institution permits religious expression, it cannot discriminate between religions in so doing.   [PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (NEW).]
[PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1983, c. 578, §3 (NEW). PL 1985, c. 797, §1 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 478, §4 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 725, §2 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 99, §28 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 100, §2 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 10, §21 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 662, §A1 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 366, §19 (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 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Doe v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 19, 66 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D. Me. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doe v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 19, 66 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D. Me. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 1983 (Counts IV & V), the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Me.Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 4602 (Counts VI & VII), and negligence (Count III) on the part of all three Defendants.”
Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth, 2005 ME 97 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 4602(2) (2002). [¶ 21] Although the Superior Court could have concluded that the parents had not stated a claim under the education discrimination portion of the MHRA because of the exclusionary language in section 4602(2), it instead looked past the wording of…”
St Dominic Academy v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). · cites it 20× “” Among other things, Chapter 366 newly prohibited educational discrimination based on religion and replaced the exemption for sexual orientation discrimination for religiously affiliated educational institutions with a provision stating that nothing in 5 M.R.S. § 4602…”
Crosspoint Church v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). · cites it 11× “¶ 131, and that “[a]s applied to Plaintiff, 5 M.R.S. § 4602 violates the Free Speech Clause of the U.”
Helwig v. Intercoast Career Inst. (Me. Super. Ct 2012). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S.A. § 4602. 4 The MHRA protects the opportunity to participate in all educational, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training programs without discrimination because of sex.”
Crosspoint Church v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). “§ 4572(1)(A) because the parties agree that Crosspoint is exempt from this provision.”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Megunticook Mgmt. (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “§ 4572(2)), and the court is required to make a finding that the plaintiff is otherwise qualified for an educational opportunity where the plaintiff complains of educational discrimination (5 M.R.S. § 4602(2)(A)). However, the Maine statute does not require the court to make a…”
XinXiu Tina Hogan v. Kennebec Valley Cmty. Coll., 2026 ME 5 (Me. 2026). “Title 5 M.R.S. § 4602 (2025), entitled “Unlawful educational discrimination,” states in relevant part that “[i]t is unlawful educational discrimination in violation of this Act, on the basis of .”
Doe v. Clenchy (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “) The Plaintiffs' Complaint mirrors the MHRC's April 2009 findings to the extent Count I seeks relief from unlawful discrimination in education on the basis of sexual orientation under 5 M.R.S. § 4602(4)(A) and Count II seeks relief from unlawful discrimination in public…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4602(1) — 2 cases
St Dominic Academy v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). “” Among other things, Chapter 366 newly prohibited educational discrimination based on religion and replaced the exemption for sexual orientation discrimination for religiously affiliated educational institutions with a provision stating that nothing in 5 M.R.S. § 4602…”
Crosspoint Church v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). “¶ 131, and that “[a]s applied to Plaintiff, 5 M.R.S. § 4602 violates the Free Speech Clause of the U.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4602(2) — 1 case
Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth, 2005 ME 97 (Me. 2005). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 4602(2) (2002). [¶ 21] Although the Superior Court could have concluded that the parents had not stated a claim under the education discrimination portion of the MHRA because of the exclusionary language in section 4602(2), it instead looked past the wording of…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4602(2)(A) — 2 cases
Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth, 2005 ME 97 (Me. 2005). “” 5 M.R.S.A. § 4602(2) (2002). [¶ 21] Although the Superior Court could have concluded that the parents had not stated a claim under the education discrimination portion of the MHRA because of the exclusionary language in section 4602(2), it instead looked past the wording of…”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Megunticook Mgmt. (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “§ 4572(2)), and the court is required to make a finding that the plaintiff is otherwise qualified for an educational opportunity where the plaintiff complains of educational discrimination (5 M.R.S. § 4602(2)(A)). However, the Maine statute does not require the court to make a…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4602(4)(A) — 1 case
Doe v. Clenchy (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “) The Plaintiffs' Complaint mirrors the MHRC's April 2009 findings to the extent Count I seeks relief from unlawful discrimination in education on the basis of sexual orientation under 5 M.R.S. § 4602(4)(A) and Count II seeks relief from unlawful discrimination in public…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4602(5) — 1 case
Crosspoint Church v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). “¶ 131, and that “[a]s applied to Plaintiff, 5 M.R.S. § 4602 violates the Free Speech Clause of the U.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4602(5)(C) — 2 cases
St Dominic Academy v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). “” Among other things, Chapter 366 newly prohibited educational discrimination based on religion and replaced the exemption for sexual orientation discrimination for religiously affiliated educational institutions with a provision stating that nothing in 5 M.R.S. § 4602…”
Crosspoint Church v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). “¶ 131, and that “[a]s applied to Plaintiff, 5 M.R.S. § 4602 violates the Free Speech Clause of the U.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4602(5)(D) — 2 cases
St Dominic Academy v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). “” Among other things, Chapter 366 newly prohibited educational discrimination based on religion and replaced the exemption for sexual orientation discrimination for religiously affiliated educational institutions with a provision stating that nothing in 5 M.R.S. § 4602…”
Crosspoint Church v. Makin (D. Me. 2024). “¶ 131, and that “[a]s applied to Plaintiff, 5 M.R.S. § 4602 violates the Free Speech Clause of the U.”
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.