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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4622 (2026)

Limitations on attorneys' fees and damages; procedures

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Limitation.  Attorney's fees under section 4614 and civil penal damages or compensatory and punitive damages under section 4613 may not be awarded to a plaintiff in a civil action under this Act unless the plaintiff alleges and establishes that, prior to the filing of the civil action, the plaintiff first filed a complaint with the commission and the commission either:  
A. Dismissed the case under section 4612, subsection 2 or subsection 2‑A, paragraphs A and B and D to F;   [PL 2021, c. 366, §21 (AMD).]
B. Failed, within 90 days after finding reasonable grounds to believe that unlawful discrimination occurred, to enter into a conciliation agreement to which the plaintiff was a party;   [PL 2003, c. 279, §1 (AMD).]
C. Issued a right-to-sue letter under section 4612, subsection 6; or   [PL 2009, c. 235, §4 (AMD).]
D. Dismissed the case in error.   [PL 2003, c. 279, §3 (NEW).]
If the commission issued a right-to-sue letter, the plaintiff may not be awarded attorney's fees, civil penal damages or compensatory and punitive damages unless the plaintiff establishes that the plaintiff received the right-to-sue letter before filing the civil action.  
This subsection does not apply to or limit any remedies for civil actions filed under subchapter 5 if one or more additional causes of action are alleged in the same civil action that do not require exhaustion of administrative remedies or subchapter 4 if the allegations are covered by the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 United States Code, Chapter 45.  
[PL 2023, c. 255, §2 (AMD).]
2.  Advancement on docket; priority.  If the plaintiff alleges and establishes that the conditions of subsection 1 have been met, the action may also be advanced on the docket and given priority over other civil actions.  
[PL 1981, c. 255, §4 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1971, c. 501, §1 (NEW). PL 1973, c. 347, §14 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 255, §4 (RPR). PL 1993, c. 327, §§3,4 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 393, §30 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 400, §2 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 279, §§1-3 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 235, §4 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 613, §23 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 613, §29 (AFF). PL 2019, c. 465, §8 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 366, §21 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 255, §2 (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 53 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Lorraine Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2017 ME 41 (Me. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lorraine Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2017 ME 41 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “5 M.R.S. § 4622(1) (2016); see Gordon v. Cummings, 2000 ME 68, ¶ 11 , 756 A.”
Daniels v. Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility, 2012 ME 80 (Me. 2012). · cites it 2× “We express no view on whether or not this procedural sequence satisfies the requirements of 5 M.R.S. § 4622(1) (2011). [7] This quotation comes directly from the email, which is part of the summary judgment record.”
Batchelder v. Realty Resources Hosp., LLC, 2007 ME 17 (Me. 2007). · cites it 2× “Denny's also contends that Batchelder was precluded from recovering compensatory damages from the seventeen Realty Resources entities pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 4622(1) (2006) because she failed to name them in her previous complaint before the Commission.”
Gordan v. Cummings, 2000 ME 68 (Me. 2000). · cites it 3× “See 5 M.R.S.A. § 4622 (1989 & Supp.1999) (limiting the award of attorney fees and damages to plaintiffs who first bring their MHRA action before the Commission).”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Local 1361, United Paperworkers Int'l Union AFL-CIO, 383 A.2d 369 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “Under the Maine Act, an aggrieved individual could bring suit in Superior Court without first filing with the Commission, although the Maine Act encourages resort to the administrative machinery by providing that if an individual does not invoke his administrative remedies he…”
Cutting v. Down East Orthopedic Assocs., P.A., 278 F. Supp. 3d 485 (D. Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “5 M.R.S. § 4622(1) Exception Ms. Cutting contends that 5 M.”
Danielle Sullivan v. St. Joseph's Rehab. & Residence, 2016 ME 107 (Me. 2016). “2014), and also that Sullivan had failed to name CHE in her original complaint to the Maine Human Rights Commission pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 4622 (2015). We are not persuaded by Sullivan’s arguments that the court erred in granting summary judgment and dismissing CHE as a party,…”
Robards v. Cotton Mill Assocs., 1998 ME 157 (Me. 1998). · cites it 5× “[¶ 9] Cotton Mill also asserts that Robards failed to comply with 5 M.R.S.A. § 4622 (1989) [3] by commencing this action before waiting 90 days after the Commission's finding that there existed reasonable grounds to believe that unlawful discrimination had occurred.”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. City of Auburn, 408 A.2d 1253 (Me. 1979). “And section 4613(2)(B), applying to “any action filed under this Act by the commission or by any other person,” speaks in terms of a court trial in detailing the relief that may be granted: If the court fínds that unlawful discrimination occurred, its judgment shall specify an…”
Adkins v. Atria Senior Living, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 3d 399 (D. Me. 2015). · cites it 3× “5 M.R.S. § 4622(1)(A-D). Each “occurrence” is an event that would require notice to the individual claimant.”
Braverman v. Penobscot Shoe Co., 859 F. Supp. 596 (D. Me. 1994). “5 M.R.S.A. § 4622(1). The Maine Human Rights Commission issued Braverman a right-to-sue letter.”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 770 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 5 M.R.S. § 4622. The statutory language does not support Sunbury’s position.”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4622(1) — 25 cases
Daniels v. Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility, 2012 ME 80 (Me. 2012). “We express no view on whether or not this procedural sequence satisfies the requirements of 5 M.R.S. § 4622(1) (2011). [7] This quotation comes directly from the email, which is part of the summary judgment record.”
Batchelder v. Realty Resources Hosp., LLC, 2007 ME 17 (Me. 2007). “Denny's also contends that Batchelder was precluded from recovering compensatory damages from the seventeen Realty Resources entities pursuant to 5 M.R.S. § 4622(1) (2006) because she failed to name them in her previous complaint before the Commission.”
Cutting v. Down East Orthopedic Assocs., P.A., 278 F. Supp. 3d 485 (D. Me. 2017). “5 M.R.S. § 4622(1) Exception Ms. Cutting contends that 5 M.”
Lorraine Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2017 ME 41 (Me. 2017). “5 M.R.S. § 4622(1) (2016); see Gordon v. Cummings, 2000 ME 68, ¶ 11 , 756 A.”
Braverman v. Penobscot Shoe Co., 859 F. Supp. 596 (D. Me. 1994). “5 M.R.S.A. § 4622(1). The Maine Human Rights Commission issued Braverman a right-to-sue letter.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4622(1)(A) — 2 cases
Adkins v. Atria Senior Living, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 3d 399 (D. Me. 2015). “5 M.R.S. § 4622(1)(A-D). Each “occurrence” is an event that would require notice to the individual claimant.”
Sharon Andersen v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2025 ME 59 (Me. 2025).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4622(1)(B) — 4 cases
Lorraine Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2017 ME 41 (Me. 2017). “5 M.R.S. § 4622(1) (2016); see Gordon v. Cummings, 2000 ME 68, ¶ 11 , 756 A.”
Nadeau v. Rainbow Rugs, Inc., 675 A.2d 973 (Me. 1996).
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 770 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Me. 2011). “” 5 M.R.S. § 4622. The statutory language does not support Sunbury’s position.”
Lorraine Scamman v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 2017 ME 41 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4622(1)(C) — 3 cases
McGlauflin v. RCC Atl. Inc., 269 F.R.D. 56 (D. Me. 2010).
Tiffany Vargas v. Riverbend Mgmt. LLC, 2024 ME 27 (Me. 2024).
Sharon Andersen v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2025 ME 59 (Me. 2025).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4622(A) — 1 case
Adkins v. Atria Senior Living, Inc., 113 F. Supp. 3d 399 (D. Me. 2015). “5 M.R.S. § 4622(1)(A-D). Each “occurrence” is an event that would require notice to the individual claimant.”
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.