[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-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",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_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",6210237,"mediaKeyId","3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750","parentId",3720786,"title","Maine Human Rights Commission finds no reasonable grounds in ex‑employee’s whistleblower/retaliation claim","audioSeconds",1380,"startMs",13661000,"endMs",15041000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750&start=13661&end=15041","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750/thumbnail_13661000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6210237/Maine/Maine-Human-Rights-Commission-finds-no-reasonable-grounds-in-exemployees-whistleblowerretaliation-claim","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210237-844599106762503e09de2a59ef36468e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770981696&Signature=j6l93nOd5H~Js1KQrAZAw6Xhf1DuTNga9Dninc-vbMluOIwVfR8e1pmHD-VHWPbSYaqHCz4pT7DLKXv3cAzDknHoWk8B2fKsHTWGxntClXgXc4a61Cd5X243RU0ZbGht1ppK-q6qGafTeBLCCiWv9yE0D1hBjsKVBOTIZ7jPXXFbrcP8HLnz3hAI8fiyRw74kZ7iLxiNXGlJsxgvBtJK73aSEyaXoqRGuyBcPjsVsAHiG06KEojq9BvhIl~iDKNlwGwxz-d~Ny3IMUi2ExSfJXAGGZaH-EtMkQhaBKRF9b4LBg2cYvCY-m~wwaSoVPgBfFGifpKZDjJK~jQmoytfgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maine Human Rights Commission","date","2025-05-19T00:00:00Z","article","The Maine Human Rights Commission voted to dismiss a complaint by a former car‑sales employee who said he was retaliated against after reporting that a coworker falsified customer financing paperwork.

Complainant Richard Green said he reported suspected fraudulent signatures on financing documents in late 2021 and that, after his report, management repeatedly criticized his performance, culminating in written counseling and his resignation in July 2022. Complainant counsel described a close temporal link between the protected report and later discipline and argued the cumulative effect made continued employment intolerable.

Respondent Lee Auto Malls presented evidence of longstanding performance and attendance concerns, including text messages, supervisory notes and a photograph the company introduced showing the employee asleep in a car while expected to be working. Respondent said it repeatedly offered transfers and solutions but that the employee acknowledged performance gaps and ultimately resigned for another job.

Investigator Alex Brinley concluded the evidence did not support an inference that the company disciplined Green because he made reports; rather, it reflected ongoing performance management. The commission voted to accept the investigator’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint for lack of reasonable grounds.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle"," Maine Human Rights Commission meeting May 19, 2025,","oneSentenceSummary","The commission dismissed a constructive‑discharge/retaliation complaint by a former car‑sales employee who alleged his employer disciplined him after he reported possible document falsification.","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},6210243,"Commission rejects discrimination, retaliation claims in Baxter State Park termination",3453,9647000,13100000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750&start=9647&end=13100","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750/thumbnail_9647000.jpg","/articles/6210243/Maine/Commission-rejects-discrimination-retaliation-claims-in-Baxter-State-Park-termination","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210243-3a28f74f2e99b0196e0fd4511baad75e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770981696&Signature=MvzDLCZXgmYIXeTYcHxoESIkdQl0JWvM6dNk5a4GTERwh8JfTxVkLxIj09PJJCTNKW49HckZlPvcFv4exOLlALxcXLn2CNPxuJ4k6r14uYxEeLsL2rEnhvbuHyd3cV-Zi7MZlN9CQJZ~2O~q~j2tYqPRy6PBA9IIHY-fhcI7NJoanOtun~jfOEgUZm2tDdJtJYJ3mqK4lUVPsU0GtFCmP1Qfa5pgVPhIyXhEl0OyBtoRHw775AI~PKWcOCgM0z5Q0yew7bp5-YBp4gTlBlgQaO5KcfuKmGPgSddo2POzQVMTYfJjtMeqdnVELdlfGJoOgVe~U3yhxTg2zKp1u8QNvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maine Human Rights Commission voted to dismiss a complaint by a former Baxter State Park employee who alleged she was terminated because of disability and in retaliation for requesting reasonable accommodation.

Complainant Crystal Toms, who worked as an interpretive specialist, told the commission the park imposed a series of timed hikes as a condition of passing probation and that she was given six time‑tested hikes to complete or be fired. Toms said she was injured, provided a provider’s note asking for a pause for healing, and was terminated days later. Her counsel argued the timed hikes were not an essential job function and that imposing them as a pass/fail probation condition unlawfully screened out a qualified worker with a disability.

Baxter State Park’s counsel said hiking and safe backcountry travel are essential functions of the interpretive‑specialist role; the park described a gradual‑increase hiking plan implemented as a reasonable accommodation, gave generous timing standards, and said it worked with the employee for months. Park counsel also cited civil service rules limiting probation extensions to one year and pointed to safety concerns for employees who cannot complete multi‑day backcountry hikes.

Investigator Alex Brinley recommended no reasonable grounds for discrimination or retaliation, finding the park had implemented a gradual hiking plan, that safety and essential‑function concerns justified the plan, and that the employee could not complete probation within applicable civil‑service timing. The commission voted to accept the investigator’s recommendation and dismissed the complaints.

Commissioners noted the case turned on whether timed hiking was an essential function and on whether the employer had offered reasonable accommodations; the commission concluded the park had documented efforts to accommodate and that the record did not establish unlawful discrimination or retaliation.","The commission voted no reasonable grounds on disability discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a former interpretive specialist who challenged timed hiking tests and her termination during probation.",{"_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},6210247,"Commission votes no reasonable grounds in dead‑naming complaint against clinical services provider",2019,4050000,6069000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750&start=4050&end=6069","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750/thumbnail_4050000.jpg","/articles/6210247/Maine/Commission-votes-no-reasonable-grounds-in-deadnaming-complaint-against-clinical-services-provider","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210247-7c8fdd53dce12a55df8b962c0465f1bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770981696&Signature=LV14HEFOGd-GdrWQ~tt37WcEnwRpJtLB6fx55BZv5ylzsxCZGcdPL5X35Bv9uDLDZNDpbRbDDU4yL8KWsiya3CqJ~eWw7EX1f9Bn7MMkY7C41Z-pvIGs7An9M0T2CbTjCxLvgfWcbkkO3dfbgjgtdrxmk-hJJy~jE9DOKzrFJMgxOvKINAjHF8bR771W5J9~z4-pLohwsAYGd5fy4dabvB~q6g6yh91iFFEZoym4Q71~1pJKcfh-G8D8dwc-V1iQsyu296CtJejGh91hRo7b0JOjSXIDQYVcVY~z9PU4PWYrXyHepfKhTNR-6cvrm0IuQXpGSsHb9oR7Rv3ylXX-pA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maine Human Rights Commission voted to find no reasonable grounds that a Lewiston‑area clinical services provider unlawfully discriminated against a former employee who said coworkers repeatedly used the employee’s legal “dead” name in an electronic medical record.

Complainant Lynn Schmidt told the commission she endured repeated dead‑naming in client records and reminders for two years at Community Clinical Services (CCS) and said the practice caused pervasive distress. She said staff and managers misunderstood what the term “dead name” meant and that CCS sometimes reverted entries to her legal name in the EMR despite requests to use her preferred name.

Respondent counsel said CCS honored Schmidt’s preferred name in e‑mail, badges and internal communications and repeatedly worked to display a preferred name in the shared Epic electronic medical record; counsel said the provider’s EMR instance required the name to match the provider’s licensure for billing and medical‑records compliance and that CCS engaged multiple technical and HR personnel in efforts to find a lawful workaround. Counsel said CCS told the employee that changing the name on professional licensure would allow the EMR to reflect the preferred name.

Investigator Bob O’Kane reviewed the record and reported that CCS attempted accommodations outside the EMR and that the remaining display of a legal name in the EMR resulted from the billing and licensing constraints the employer described. Commissioners voted to dismiss the complaint, saying the record showed substantial accommodation efforts and no evidence of unlawful animus.

The commission will send formal notice of the decision to the parties.","The commission voted that evidence did not support unlawful discrimination after a former employee said a provider repeatedly used her legal ‘dead’ name in an electronic medical record; the provider said the EMR required licensed name for billing.",{"_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},6210252,"Commission finds reasonable grounds in complaint over clinic’s request for letter for service dog",960,8444000,9404000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750&start=8444&end=9404","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750/thumbnail_8444000.jpg","/articles/6210252/Maine/Commission-finds-reasonable-grounds-in-complaint-over-clinics-request-for-letter-for-service-dog","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210252-19f76d652b6a99fc2726deb94c85091b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770981696&Signature=EaC9pHRzAbZF74FfjMGNgeMW6Oeen-BtmNWUyTi3vxKMg4UfXhKXEd1WdXHctN1fxtPX8p10Ifrg4eriUGcrt9np9~2MJ7Omf2uJG0WFe90sjbz67eNk1~3Y5c-Ap9d4JzAXaYgx2QejeXrY-4JH4ARpzvUjQVS3uzKFahG2fzvD2CsOEqN7z7E-WM1J8WjwS4-3fG0ZbELFqwyQAYLHkoVH7hzTPgE6OMgn3AaTDC6moHut~XnwZ-iP8nKSVLoSDGvcVonRJRxSOoyofqvbmBUdNrB5B3HZi3oP8Jduq98nce7ZIw0csl~kHP4hiOZwZ2nZkCg-xASULZzT4LS40g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maine Human Rights Commission voted that there are reasonable grounds to believe a primary‑care office discriminated against a patient by requesting medical documentation before allowing a certified service dog to accompany the patient.

Patricia Hall testified that during a February primary‑care visit a staff member asked whether her dog was a service animal, then asked for a copy of certification and later told her a pulmonologist’s letter would be required before the dog could return. Hall told the commission she had provided a copy of the dog’s certification card when she first became a patient and that staff had previously told her a copy had been placed in her chart.

Respondent counsel said staff questioned the patient’s documentation as a matter of routine verification and that no staff member told Hall she could not return without the letter; the practice’s account was that staff discussed documentation as an optional way to make record‑keeping easier. Investigator Bob O’Kane concluded that even a suggestion that the patient provide documentation not required by law violated the Human Rights Act’s rules about service animals and accessibility.

The commission accepted the investigator’s recommended finding of reasonable grounds. Commissioners cited credibility of the complainant’s account and the legal point that a provider may not impose documentation requirements beyond what the law allows. The commission ordered conciliation and will send determination letters to the parties.

The decision requires the clinic to consider whether its front‑desk procedures comply with state and federal rules on access by service animals and to respond during conciliation.","The commission found reasonable grounds that a medical office improperly required a letter from a specialist before allowing a patient’s certified service dog on premises, a potential disability‑based access violation.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6210257,"Maine Human Rights Commission finds reasonable grounds in Wayfair disability and retaliation claim",2432,5884000,8316000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750&start=5884&end=8316","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3720786-23e99fc3178d43d6f186c31a256f5750/thumbnail_5884000.jpg","/articles/6210257/Maine/Maine-Human-Rights-Commission-finds-reasonable-grounds-in-Wayfair-disability-and-retaliation-claim","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6210257-07755b453b4594edc73fbd8df4afc851/orig.mp4?Expires=1770981696&Signature=cUc2tAwKEhr02FGbxsNNoD3GogZAiGBxzBGjrCM8-TVmOdq5xvlMPVgKpP3IQzmgb8LbEwZcTsKZij21Gqpm5Kv~H2ccGdnZAmAGdgmPCI354l8AXCGcM8pkVL7DYD-L2ejX2OXfNNtt3JLdUS05iDAdEOkRdCrVYULj~JNt8TPWRCC~OBaHGzo9VL20iMIBzEf2t87tYCEgkr-HVbGJ8hT26Q4i62JLnSXxgj3gfxFFbjiyz6JRmevr~qndhWJqEZIAKGGPWF2t9TFTArLGq2y3IAOPCtX80rHItLEuT2qCfwt9MqxOJHJCNt8o4h9GPyB2vVd3uxdgDED60Oop2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Maine Human Rights Commission on Wednesday voted that there are reasonable grounds to believe Wayfair unlawfully discriminated against an employee on the basis of disability and unlawfully retaliated against the employee in a company reduction-in-force.

The commission’s investigators recommended splitting the claims: reasonable grounds on disability and retaliation, and no reasonable grounds on age. The commissioners voted to adopt those recommended findings after hearing testimony from attorneys and the assigned investigator.

The case arises from a large-scale reduction in force at Wayfair in 2022 that affected many employees. Wayfair told the commission it used two neutral criteria to select employees for the RIF: the employee’s most recent performance review and compensation. Complainant counsel said the performance review was influenced by managers’ treatment of the employee after the complainant disclosed an autism diagnosis and therefore tainted the selection process. Respondent counsel said managers repeatedly raised legitimate concerns about the employee’s communication and follow‑through, that the employer repeatedly offered an internal accommodation process and transfer options, and that the complainant did not meaningfully seek or use accommodations.

Investigator testimony described evidence that several supervisors criticized the employee soon after disability disclosures and that the final performance review relied on prior managers’ reports. Investigator Bob O’Kane summarized that prior supervisors’ complaints appeared to influence the final evaluation and that the complainant had not previously had a failing performance review before the final evaluation used in the RIF. “There did appear to be some animus,” O’Kane said during the hearing.

Wayfair argued the employer had legitimate, non‑discriminatory reasons to rely on a recent performance review and objective compensation information in a RIF and that it had engaged in efforts to accommodate the employee’s needs. The complainant’s counsel argued the record shows that the performance scoring reflected reactions to disability‑related conduct and that the company’s ultimate reliance on that score created a plausible discrimination and retaliation claim.

After debate, the commission voted to accept the investigator’s recommendation: reasonable grounds on disability and retaliation claims and no reasonable grounds on the age claim. The commission will send written notices to the parties and move to conciliation on the reasonable‑grounds determinations.","The commission found \"reasonable grounds\" that Wayfair discriminated against and retaliated against an employee with autism during a 2022 reduction-in-force, while finding no reasonable grounds on an age claim.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Maine Human Rights Commission finds no reasonable grounds in ex‑employee’s whistleblower/retaliation claim

Commission rejects discrimination, retaliation claims in Baxter State Park termination

Commission votes no reasonable grounds in dead‑naming complaint against clinical services provider

Commission finds reasonable grounds in complaint over clinic’s request for letter for service dog

Maine Human Rights Commission finds reasonable grounds in Wayfair disability and retaliation claim