Notes of Decisions
Daniels v. Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility, 2012 ME 80 (Me. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See 5 M.R.S. § 4633(1) (2011) (stating that "[a] person " may not retaliate against an individual because the individual asserted rights that the MHRA protects (emphasis added)); 5 M.”
Pippin v. Boulevard Motel Corp., 835 F.3d 180 (1st Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “2008), and the antiretaliation provision of the MHRA, which prohibits “discrimination] against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice that is unlawful under [the MHRA],” see Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4633. Boulevard removed the two cases to federal…”
Doyle v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2003 ME 61 (Me. 2003).
“” 5 M.R.S.A. § 4633(1) (2002). To establish a prima facie claim of *56 retaliation, the employee must show that she engaged in statutorily protected activity; her employer made an employment decision that adversely affected her; and that “there was a causal link between the…”
Roy v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, 321 F. Supp. 3d 155 (D. Me. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Because Roy has not articulated a genuine issue of fact as to whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive environment, CCS is entitled to summary judgment on Roy's claim for hostile work…”
Ramsdell v. Huhtamaki, Inc., 992 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Me. 2014).
· cites it 2× “§ 2000e-3 and 5 M.R.S.A. § 4633. On June 6, 2013, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Count I to the extent that it alleged a sexually-based hostile work environment claim.”
Richard v. Reg'l Sch. Unit 57, 296 F. Supp. 3d 274 (D. Me. 2017).
· cites it 2× “RSU 57 answered the Complaint on August 1, 2016, denying its essential allegations and raising nine affirmative defenses.”
Lakshman v. Univ. of Maine Sys., 328 F. Supp. 2d 92 (D. Me. 2004).
“Lakshman alleges that as a result of filing complaints with the MHRC and the EEOC, members of his Department at the University retali *113 ated against him, creating a hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.”
Porietis v. Tradesmen Int'l, LLC, 227 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D. Me. 2017).
“” 5 M.R.S.A. § 4633(1). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of the MHRA, an employee “must demonstrate that he engaged in a statutorily protected activity, that [the employer] made an employment decision that adversely affected him, and that there was a…”
Pippin v. Boulevard Motel Corp., 121 F. Supp. 3d 230 (D. Me. 2015).
“” 5 M.R.S. § 4633(1). As under the MWPA, Plaintiffs must first establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation by proving that “(1) [s]he engaged in protected conduct under the statute; (2)[s]he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection existed…”
Ardito v. Solvay Sa (D. Me. 2022).
· cites it 3× “It is uncertain how this language applies to MWPA claims, but since section 4572 is the provision providing a right of action to whistleblowers, the Court is reluctant to view it as surplusage. Charette, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 356 n.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4633(1) — 16 cases
Daniels v. Narraguagus Bay Health Care Facility, 2012 ME 80 (Me. 2012).
“See 5 M.R.S. § 4633(1) (2011) (stating that "[a] person " may not retaliate against an individual because the individual asserted rights that the MHRA protects (emphasis added)); 5 M.”
Doyle v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2003 ME 61 (Me. 2003).
“” 5 M.R.S.A. § 4633(1) (2002). To establish a prima facie claim of *56 retaliation, the employee must show that she engaged in statutorily protected activity; her employer made an employment decision that adversely affected her; and that “there was a causal link between the…”
Roy v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC, 321 F. Supp. 3d 155 (D. Me. 2018).
“Because Roy has not articulated a genuine issue of fact as to whether the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive environment, CCS is entitled to summary judgment on Roy's claim for hostile work…”
Richard v. Reg'l Sch. Unit 57, 296 F. Supp. 3d 274 (D. Me. 2017).
“RSU 57 answered the Complaint on August 1, 2016, denying its essential allegations and raising nine affirmative defenses.”
Porietis v. Tradesmen Int'l, LLC, 227 F. Supp. 3d 126 (D. Me. 2017).
“” 5 M.R.S.A. § 4633(1). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of the MHRA, an employee “must demonstrate that he engaged in a statutorily protected activity, that [the employer] made an employment decision that adversely affected him, and that there was a…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4633(3) — 1 case
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 4633(a) — 1 case
Ardito v. Solvay Sa (D. Me. 2022).
“It is uncertain how this language applies to MWPA claims, but since section 4572 is the provision providing a right of action to whistleblowers, the Court is reluctant to view it as surplusage. Charette, 332 F. Supp. 3d at 356 n.”
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.