In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine addressed an uncommon claim under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA). The case involved alleged discrimination against an employee for obtaining a protection from abuse (PFA) order against a coworker. While the judge dismissed the employee’s sex discrimination and hostile work environment claims, it allowed her PFA discrimination claims to proceed to trial.
For Maine employers, this decision highlights an overlooked protected class and serves as an important reminder that workplace disputes arising from domestic violence or protective orders require careful, well-documented responses that focus on employee safety, neutrality, and consistent enforcement of workplace policies.
Background
The MHRA prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because the employee “sought and received an order of protection” (5 M.R.S. § 4572(1)(A)). In Poland v. United Parcel Services, Inc., the judge noted that there’s little Maine case law interpreting this statutory provision, making the decision precedent-setting.
According to the complaint, the employee claimed her former spouse engaged in stalking and harassment after their relationship ended. Both individuals worked for UPS at the time. This conduct eventually led her to obtain a PFA order. She reported the existence of the order to UPS management and later reported incidents of alleged stalking and violations of the protective order. She was fired for hitting her ex-husband at work but claimed the fact that she obtained a PFA order contributed to her discharge.
What employers should know
First, you should be aware that any adverse decision you make against an employee with a PFA order could be the basis for a discrimination claim. When one worker has a PFA order against another worker, don’t take the position that it’s too difficult to manage the situation and that both employees should be put out of work or even fired.
Second, while PFA orders apply directly to the parties and not to you as the employer, don’t allow the orders to be violated at work. If a PFA order says the respondent can’t be in the workplace of the employee with the order, then you need to address this and make sure the individuals aren’t at work together.
Finally, remember that out-of-work misconduct that affects the work environment will need to be addressed. Taking the position that this is just an employee’s personal business may land you in the situation UPS is now facing. If you have questions, please reach out to a member of our team.
Peter Lowe, Hanna Wurgaft, and Erin Mackintosh are attorneys with Brann & Isaacson in Lewiston, Maine, and can be reached at plowe@brannlaw.com, hwurgaft@brannlaw.com, and emackintosh@brannlaw.com.