Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4614 (2026)

Attorney's fees and costs

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any civil action under this Act, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs, except that the commission may not be awarded attorney's fees and costs and is not liable to pay any party's attorney's fees and costs. [PL 2019, c. 465, §7 (AMD).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1981, c. 255, §3 (NEW). PL 2019, c. 465, §7 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · 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). “…the changes do not affect this appeal. . The MHRA also provides for awards of attorney fees to prevailing parties. 5 M.R.S. § 4614(2011).”

Nadeau v. Rainbow Rugs, Inc., 675 A.2d 973 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “1991) (“Employers are liable for hostile environment harassment both by their supervisors and by the victim’s co-workers if ‘an official representing that institution knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, of the harassment’s occurrence, unless that…”

Raymond v. Lane Constr. Corp., 527 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D. Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “” 4 5 M.R.S.A. §4614. The Court concludes that attorney’s fees are *160 properly considered under the Maine Human Rights Act in determining whether the jurisdictional threshold has been met.”

Kezer v. Cent. Maine Med. Ctr., 40 A.3d 955 (Me. 2012). “See 5 M.R.S. § 4614 (2011); Me. Human Rights Comm’n v.”

Chaloult v. Interstate Brands Corp., 296 F. Supp. 2d 2 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “, having obtained a jury verdict for $1 in nominal damages in a trial against Defendant Interstate Brands Corporation, now seeks his attorney’s fee under the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 4614, in the amount of $67,471.”

Quint v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 245 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Me. 2003). “§ 2617 (a)(3) (1998), and the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S.A. § 4614 (2002), as a prevailing party at trial.”

Maine State Academy of Hair Design, Inc. v. Com. Union Ins., 1997 ME 188 (Me. 1997). “§ 4622(1), filing a complaint with the Commission is merely a prerequisite to obtaining, in a subsequent civil action, attorney fees pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 4614 and civil penal damages pursuant to 5 M.”

Robards v. Cotton Mill Assocs., 1998 ME 157 (Me. 1998). · cites it 2× “[¶ 10] Cotton Mill's assertion that Robards was not a "prevailing party" within the meaning of 5 M.R.S.A. § 4614 (1989) is also unavailing.”

Schlear v. Fiber Materials, Inc., 574 A.2d 876 (Me. 1990). “In that action a successful plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. § 4614 on a showing that she “first filed a complaint with the commission” and that the commission either dismissed or failed to act upon the complaint.”

Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Allen, 474 A.2d 853 (Me. 1984). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S.A. § 4614 (Supp.1983). The Superior Court, Knox County, decided that AFSCME was not entitled to fees and costs and entered judgment accordingly.”

Thayer v. E. Maine Med. Ctr., 740 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D. Me. 2010). “” 5 M.R.S. § 4614. The Maine Superior Court has ruled that costs of an expert witness may be awarded under this provision.”

Bernard Nadeau v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC, 2021 ME 16 (Me. 2021). “; 5 M.R.S. § 4614 (2020). Furthermore, if a “party seeks compensatory or punitive damages,” then the plaintiff is afforded the right to a jury trial.”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4614(2011) — 1 case

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.