Legal Opinion · Dissent
Lindsay v. Great Northern Paper Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided October 13, 1987Published
1DissentScolnik, Justice
I respectfully dissent.
The petitioner in this case alleged that his suspension from work violated 39 M.R. S.A. § 111 (1978), which provides in pertinent part: “No employee shall be discriminated against by any employer in any way for ... asserting any claim under this Act.” There is no question that Lindsay’s assertion of his right not to be forced into employment while physically incapacitated due to a work-related injury constituted a “claim” under the Workers’ Compensation Act within the broad meaning of that term. See Delano v. City of South Portland, 405 A.2d 222, 227 (Me.1979). The sole…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Regents of the University of California v. BakkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Whirlpool Corp. v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Maine Human Rights Commission v. City of AuburnSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
- Claim of Duncan v. New York State Developmental CenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Delano v. City of South PortlandSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.