Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fuhrmann v. Staples the Office Superstore East, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided December 11, 2012Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LEVY, J.,

with whom MEAD and GORMAN, JJ., join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

[¶ 36] I concur that the summary judgment awarded to Staples should be vacated, but I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that Fuhrm-ann cannot maintain suit against her individual supervisors. Fuhrmann can sue her individual supervisors because (A) the Maine Human Rights Act’s definition of “employer” in 5 M.R.S. § 4553(4) (2011) is unambiguous and encompasses individual supervisors within its terms, thus subjecting them to liability for their unlawful discrimination; and to the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation & ParoleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
Blue Yonder, LLC v. State Tax AssessorSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2011
DiCentes v. MichaudSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1998
Whitney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2006
Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards v. CormierSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1987

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