Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Maine Supreme Court
Hackett v. Western Express, Inc.
Plaintiff Scott Hackett aggravated a pre-existing low back injury while working as a long distance truck driver for Western Express. After Hackett was terminated for reasons unconnected to his injury, Hackett filed a petition for award to the Workers' Compensation Board and was awarded ongoing partial incapacity benefits for a gradual injury to his lower back. When calculating Hackett's weekly wage, the hearing officer (1) excluded the nine cents per mile Hackett received as per diem pay, concluding that it was paid to cover special expenses, and (2) concluded that the per diem payments were not a fringe benefit that could be included to a limited extent in average weekly wage. Hackett appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the hearing officer's decision but remanded for a recalculation of Hackett's fringe benefits pursuant to Me. W.C.B. R. ch. 1, 5(1).
Doucette v. Hallsmith/Sysco Food Services, et al.
In 2004, Matthew Doucette injured his back while working for Sysco. Doucette did not lose any earnings as a result of his injury and had no further problems with his back until 2008 when he reinjured it while working for a different employer. In 2009, Doucette filed a petition for award against Sysco for the 2004 injury, alleging entitlement to compensation from 2004 to the present. Doucette also asserted a fourteen-day rule violation against Sysco for failing to file a notice of controversy (NOC) within fourteen days of receiving the petition. Although there was some disagreement over the date of the filing, the Workers' Compensation Board hearing officer found the NOC was filed on the fifteenth day and determined Sysco was in violation of the fourteen-day rule. Sysco appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the hearing officer did not err in determining a fourteen-day rule violation occurred, (2) the hearing officer did not err in awarding total benefits from the date of the injury when the employee suffered no loss of earnings as a result of the injury, and (3) the award was not excessive and unfair.
Patrick R. Gorham v. Androscoggin County et al.
Appellant, a former corrections officer, was dismissed after an administrative hearing on November 4, 2009. On November 18, the commissioners issued their written decision which containted their findings and rationale. On December 18, the appellant filed a compliant asserting a due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and a wrongful termination claim pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. 501(3)(A). At issue was what constitutes ânotice of any actionâ to trigger M.R. Civ. P. 80B(b)âs 30-day time limit for filing an administrative appeal. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower courtâs dismissal of appellantâs due process and wrongful termination claims as untimely, holding that Rule 80B(b)âs time limit for seeking review of a decision to dismiss an employee does not commence until the employee receives a written decision of the county commissioners or personnel board. The Court also held that because appellant did not have an opportunity to address his suspension before he was terminated, direct review pursuant to Rule 80B(b) would not provide an adequate remedy for appellantâs Section 1983 claim; therefore, denial of appellantâs right to due process of law was independent of his administrative appeal.
Sisters of Charity Health System, Inc. v. Farrago
Sisters of Charity Health System, Inc. (SOCHS) sued its former employees, Douglas Farrago, MD, Raymond Stone, DO and Carolyn Kase, DO, to enforce restrictive covenants contained in contractual agreements between the doctors and SOCHS. The Superior Court entered a judgment in favor of SOCHS and ordered each doctor to pay liquidated damages pursuant to clauses in their contracts. On appeal, the doctors contended that the restrictive covenants and liquidated damages clauses were unenforceable. The Supreme Court's focus on appeal was whether the covenants reasonably sought to protect a legitimate business of SOCHS. The Court concluded that the covenants did protect legitimate business interests, and the contracts contained enforceable liquidated damages provisions. The Court affirmed the decision of the Superior Court in favor of SOCHS.