[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6395655,"mediaKeyId","2098406-28e9ca41f10693b3ca1c8b59aa2b1018","parentId",2098406,"title","Commission finds reasonable grounds in discrimination and retaliation claims against SHP Management","audioSeconds",2190,"startMs",12045000,"endMs",14235000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2098406-28e9ca41f10693b3ca1c8b59aa2b1018&start=12045&end=14235","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2098406-28e9ca41f10693b3ca1c8b59aa2b1018/thumbnail_12045000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6395655/Maine/Commission-finds-reasonable-grounds-in-discrimination-and-retaliation-claims-against-SHP-Management","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6395655-cd90247a21fd7371091d499119978870/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147632&Signature=QeZ8eTNTTFiPLln5ZXssfxk2otav25eM-panYyiac9fMof4rlWNoC-33H-5CGfE-xPJirm1IdbbRebfjcmym02pyINtERHA20d0CFU-5uRgBhdQcyFKjKoZq96eIVaowLv-tyE6EYx8QQJvf17Oh1nVBbPjuE5piOMkY-lww2toNgCofHi53b4FKT1~sCuw2V4mgL6zJTRV61R8FjUis7u4TBVV8u9UB7Pi2rvASdqftIWz9ryjAumNrBhD0LMl1OS3sRf491LT9bT55guJlt1OIEVYoMySWhNavNeAIpeaetxroPNpihwpH2BQZb1AHPPv5yQpb30Svl8Im4IyKww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maine Human Rights Commission Meetings","date","2025-01-06T00:00:00Z","article","The Human Rights Commission voted that there are reasonable grounds to believe SHP Management Corporation discriminated against and retaliated against a maintenance technician, Mr. Kenord, on the basis of race, color and national origin and for engaging in protected activity.

Attorney Martin Tarr, representing the complainant, argued the commission's record left key questions unanswered about who made the termination decision and argued the employer shifted reasons for firing Mr. Kenord after he filed a discrimination charge. Tarr urged the commission to apply the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act's substantial-factor causation standard and to find the record raised at least an \"even chance\" that protected activity or bias influenced the termination.

Respondent counsel said affidavits and IRC testimony showed the termination was driven by job performance and changing job requirements. Respondent described instances in which supervisors said the complainant failed to perform assigned tasks and said a different maintenance worker had greater skills and reliability.

The parties and the investigator disputed whether alleged remarks by a supervisor' including an instance where the supervisor used a nickname and referred to the complainant as \"lazy\"'constituted subordinate bias. The complainant's counsel argued the remarks, combined with a white comparator who remained employed and other documentary evidence, supported an inference of discrimination. The investigator and respondent argued the remarks were about specific incidents and did not demonstrate a causal connection to the termination decision.

Following deliberations the commission voted to find reasonable grounds on discrimination and retaliation counts. Commissioners directed staff to proceed with the statutory conciliation process and will notify parties of next steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","January 6, 2025, Maine Human Rights Commission meeting","oneSentenceSummary","After testimony and investigator review, commissioners concluded there is reasonable ground to believe SHP Management discriminated and retaliated against an employee; the matter will be forwarded for conciliation.","taxTitle","Human Rights Commission, Maine, Executive, Maine","taxId",66185,"location","Maine","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6395660,"Commission dismisses complaint alleging State Board of Social Work failed to discipline therapist",1133,10888000,12021000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2098406-28e9ca41f10693b3ca1c8b59aa2b1018&start=10888&end=12021","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2098406-28e9ca41f10693b3ca1c8b59aa2b1018/thumbnail_10888000.jpg","/articles/6395660/Maine/Commission-dismisses-complaint-alleging-State-Board-of-Social-Work-failed-to-discipline-therapist","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6395660-23b3683bb0dc447507c7ecd9ae053781/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147632&Signature=WfbNLKoO3agHUnAdpZJXbVgmNWGL8R5CvDWzQREnTzpm3ud29T4jdohpWJnMcSq1eMd07qnWe2q9hsY4j2bcCG1a0Dv--zW7KXwbKeLlGcmv08gTJhbIaN8SboP-cC-9615jm1Bhx1XyK2zpaztMJU789-rqU4IH5mLk7dLPLEjuXdb2Qd-dW7uUOvXRbilXSDEzZwCeh~zuhR2a7~FJHpC9Xvg1NmWFlLV3uR05QwNVQTDEmN8-zud8bxttLKGnRpmfFtCgwy2HsF2eGhc5Lci-RyKuIWJymVF8sSgizSDaiNVlFneHDLv-l75YMG~s~sMBEndzzm7X-xOmkjemqA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint from Sarah Lamontagne alleging that the State Board of Social Work failed to discipline a therapist and thus enabled discrimination against patients based on gender identity.

Lamontagne told commissioners she believed the board had dismissed many complaints and \"given free rein\" to providers who should be disciplined, and she said her files and exhibits showed the board had not enforced its own rules. She argued the therapist provided false statements about medications and caused emotional harm during sessions.

Attorney Mendez O'Moral, representing the State Board, said the board followed its standard complaint protocol: the board's complaint committee reviewed the written submissions, allowed the subject to reply, and made a recommendation to the full board. The board concluded that the evidence did not establish a violation of law or board rule and therefore voted to dismiss the complaints. Counsel told the commission that many submitted complaints are dismissed because they do not allege a legal or rule violation.

Commissioners weighed Lamontagne's concerns and the board's process. After hearing from the investigator and both parties, the commission voted to adopt the investigator's recommendation of no reasonable grounds and dismissed the complaints. Commissioners stated that the record contained no evidence demonstrating discriminatory animus or that the board treated this complainant differently from other complainants.

The commission will send written notice of the dismissal to the parties.","Sarah Lamontagne accused the Maine State Board of Social Work of enabling discrimination by not disciplining a therapist; commissioners found no evidence of discriminatory animus and dismissed the complaint.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6395664,"Commission finds reasonable grounds in religious-accommodation complaint against Piedmont Airlines",2532,8044000,10576000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2098406-28e9ca41f10693b3ca1c8b59aa2b1018&start=8044&end=10576","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2098406-28e9ca41f10693b3ca1c8b59aa2b1018/thumbnail_8044000.jpg","/articles/6395664/Maine/Commission-finds-reasonable-grounds-in-religious-accommodation-complaint-against-Piedmont-Airlines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6395664-69119470e1d1c5ff23ede601ac2af07a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147632&Signature=YPN-HETVuwgMcTVgMK9isiKG4KKXjZ7XsKZf~kVLTy8kCfBGpQBEqzENb9FdDw~rnJRhBmBmcMaiosQa0oVpLsA5B-MXBQpSAPk3EcLXGeBtUdrnO0C7qoe2~AyRPfCg6~45l-mHlqDI1PKLcHMc1Pxd0l4j0T-494OEYy1aoUH6VcfG2VNuohZ1PWUa0IPNWWS2SPYe9Mdawd~fJRWBGGw7IO2ZriwMccss70Ze1haDPsxIqaPYyX8LO0CykOTyw-qlwPn~lsyp9o3ZSqXHzUAHVfIrSxksjFcncCYYhDnvhWUyEOVm2E5-kDPZkAWEPLg0dA6oEwjzFRyU4WZRGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Human Rights Commission voted that there are reasonable grounds to believe Piedmont Airlines discriminated against an employee, Heath Holland, on the basis of religion by denying a requested scheduling accommodation and assessing dependability points that extended his probationary status.

Investigators found the core fact that Holland, who observes the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday for religious reasons, requested that a Friday-night aircraft-search training shift be rescheduled. Investigator Jane O'Reilly concluded the employer did not provide a sufficient justification for denying the accommodation and that the subsequent assessment of dependability points contributed to an extended probationary period. O'Reilly wrote in the record that \"respondent at no point provided a sufficient argument for why'that request to change his training time would pose an undue burden.\" She concluded the denial and the points together amounted to an adverse employment action.

Piedmont counsel argued the attendance points were immaterial because they carried no immediate economic penalty and ultimately rolled off Holland's record, and the employee had since passed probation and continued employment without lost wages or benefits. Attorney Dan Farrington said the training points \"did not come with any economic consequence\" and that Holland had sufficient seniority to bid schedules that avoid Sabbath conflicts after probation.

Commissioners debated whether the extension of probation constituted an adverse employment action for purposes of the Maine Human Rights Act. After hearing testimony and investigator findings, the commission voted to find reasonable grounds and directed staff to attempt conciliation under the statute.

The commission recorded the vote in open session and will send letters to the parties outlining next steps for conciliation.","Investigators concluded that denying a training-rescheduling request and then assessing dependability points led to an extended probationary period that amounted to an adverse employment action; commission voted to find reasonable grounds and refer the case to conciliation.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6395669,"Maine Human Rights Commission tables Robert Whitt discrimination finding after jurisdiction challenge",3536,4064000,7600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2098406-28e9ca41f10693b3ca1c8b59aa2b1018&start=4064&end=7600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2098406-28e9ca41f10693b3ca1c8b59aa2b1018/thumbnail_4064000.jpg","/articles/6395669/Maine/Maine-Human-Rights-Commission-tables-Robert-Whitt-discrimination-finding-after-jurisdiction-challenge","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6395669-5406081f49a4ca56cd51cf2fd98c90ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147632&Signature=EgMRYlli444i6b7AVgVeu3EoXtvgr38D6PWL~K6k9Dij8fD~UMVPNHfEfc~YrbDHM~mfvqLAx7QzetkCiublHx9KW54g18pK3lA-rn04a011y0Qb-vVgkTeNQTVpJVL7F4EWZaojjiKLUzPvXw~Vn~saQqx-mEUPzAfceLmpkZI7If5SDhz2-yjaDvQbnN~21eD661dxRV7agxe8CWULPEVBVbHmz1z~vz6YsvhxgiEDV0iuUlYIZaRpPsOyGnMr7bvjGnVxhR97-BwksbMw5YDNO-yb-ENTBcwNLh4IuzeX8tgvBcdaoq700xDpHPOpek4HWZj5aNwkyRop0H1-MA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Human Rights Commission voted on Monday to delay a decision in a discrimination complaint by Robert Whitt against Mount Lee Drug after respondents argued the commission lacked jurisdiction because the investigator's report was issued more than two years after the complaint was filed.

The commission's agenda item for case E22-0336 began with a jurisdictional challenge from respondent counsel Dan Strader, who said, \"the commission must conclude its investigation within 2 years after the complaint is filed.\" He urged the panel to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The challenge centers on a statutory deadline the commission staff acknowledged is phrased as mandatory in the enabling statute. Commission counsel said she has researched similar situations and that the commission has at times issued decisions with a footnote when late mailings or internal errors delayed agenda placement, but she conceded the legal question is unsettled and that she needs time to research whether the commission can lawfully issue a substantive finding after a two-year lapse.

Robert Whitt, the complainant, and investigator Bob O'Shane both addressed the record at length. O'Shane told commissioners he relied on evidence including testimony in a workers'compensation proceeding and said he found factual indications that disciplinary information had been added to Whitt's personnel file after Whitt's termination. Attorney Strader disputed the investigator's reliance on fragments of a separate proceeding's transcript and said the transcript excerpts were out of context, that the investigator misidentified speakers, and that the record did not support a finding of pretext.

After discussion the commission voted to postpone a final determination so commission counsel can research the jurisdictional question and provide written guidance in advance of the February meeting. The motion to table the vote until the commission's February meeting passed on a voice vote.

The commission's action does not resolve the merits of the underlying discrimination claim, and members said parties would be notified in writing about deadlines for any further submissions before the February meeting.

The commission will revisit whether it can issue a finding given the two-year issue; if counsel concludes the commission lacks jurisdiction the typical administrative outcome is an administrative dismissal with a right-to-sue letter for the complainant, but the commission will decide and notify the parties at the February meeting.","A respondent attorney argued the commission lacked jurisdiction because the investigator's report issued more than two years after the complaint; the commission voted to delay a decision until legal counsel reviews the statute and returns Feb. 10.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission finds reasonable grounds in discrimination and retaliation claims against SHP Management

Commission dismisses complaint alleging State Board of Social Work failed to discipline therapist

Commission finds reasonable grounds in religious-accommodation complaint against Piedmont Airlines

Maine Human Rights Commission tables Robert Whitt discrimination finding after jurisdiction challenge