Legal Opinion · Dissent

Doughty v. Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Group

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided December 13, 2011Published

1Dissent

JABAR, J.,

with whom ALEXANDER, J., and SILVER, J., join, dissenting.

[¶ 30] I respectfully dissent because Charles Doughty is an employee pursuant to the traditional test, and he is also an employee pursuant to the dual/lent employee doctrine. As presented to us, Doughty’s employment status is the central issue in reviewing the hearing officer’s denial of Doughty’s petition against Poland Spring to remedy discrimination. See 39-*418A M.R.S. § 353 (2010) (“An employee may not be discriminated against by any employer in any way for testifying or asserting any claim under this Act.” (emphasis…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Whitehead v. Safway Steel Products, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
  2. Renfroe v. Higgins Rack Coating & Manufacturing Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. Murray's CaseSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1931
  4. Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Antheunisse v. Tiffany & Co., Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API