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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4631 (2026)

Burden of proof

✓ 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 burden shall be on the person seeking relief to prove, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged unlawful discrimination occurred.   [PL 1971, c. 501, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1971, c. 501, §1 (NEW).
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 7 cases, 1978–2019 · leading case: Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Local 1361, United Paperworkers Int'l Union AFL-CIO, 383 A.2d 369 (Me. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. Local 1361, United Paperworkers Int'l Union AFL-CIO, 383 A.2d 369 (Me. 1978). · cites it 2× “The Union also alleges that the guideline provides a shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant to show undue hardship upon the mere allegation of employment discrimination in contravention of 5 M.R.S.A. § 4631 which provides that "the burden shall be on the person seeking…”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. City of Auburn, 408 A.2d 1253 (Me. 1979). “The Superior Court’s entry of judgment for defendants was based directly upon its construction of the burden-of-proof rule set forth in 5 M.R.S.A. § 4631: In any civil action under this Act, the burden shall be on the person seeking relief to prove, by a fair preponderance of…”
Plourde v. Scott Paper Co., 552 A.2d 1257 (Me. 1989). “5 M.R.S.A. § 4631 (1979); see also Maine Human Rights Comm’n v.”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n ex rel. Gordon v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 458 A.2d 1225 (Me. 1983). “5 M.R.S.A. § 4631. In Maine Human Rights Commission v.”
Maine Human Rights Com'n, Etc. v. Canadian Pac., 458 A.2d 1225 (Me. 1983). “5 M.R.S.A. § 4631. In Maine Human Rights Commission v.”
Burnett v. Ocean Props. Ltd (D. Me. 2019). “Because Ocean Properties has not shown that it has fewer than 500 employees,8 the maximum statutory thresholds pursuant to § 1981a(b)(3)(d) and 5 M.R.S. § 4631 apply. Given that the jury awarded Mr.”
Forbes v. York Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “, damages may not be awarded under this subparagraph when the covered entity demonstrates good faith efforts, in consultation with the person with the disability who has informed the covered entity that accommodation is needed, to identify and make a reasonable accommodation…”
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.