Doughty v. Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Group
33 A.3d 410
Me.2011Background
- Doughty was hired by Work Opportunities in May 2008 and assigned to Poland Spring’s Hollis bottling facility; Poland Spring paid Work Opportunities a fee for Doughty’s services and Poland Spring controlled the on-site duties.
- On August 13, 2008, Doughty injured himself at the plant while clearing a jam; a Poland Spring supervisor sent him to the ER and later concluded he could no longer work there due to the incident.
- Doughty sought medical care; his treating physician placed him out of work, then released him to full duty on September 17; Work Opportunities scheduled medical appointments for him, but he missed several and eventually stopped providing assignments.
- Poland Spring notified Work Opportunities that the assignment was terminated after the injury; Doughty did not return to Poland Spring, and Work Opportunities later ceased placing him there.
- In November 2008, Doughty filed petitions for award and for remedy of discrimination under 39-A M.R.S. § 353 against Work Opportunities, followed by petitions against Poland Spring in January 2009; the hearing officer granted the award against Work Opportunities but denied discrimination petitions against both Work Opportunities and Poland Spring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doughty may pursue discrimination relief under §353 against Poland Spring despite no contract for hire. | Doughty contends he and Poland Spring had a dual/lent-employer relationship. | The absence of a contract for hire between Doughty and Poland Spring means Poland Spring isn’t an employer for §353 purposes. | Yes, Doughty is an employee of Poland Spring under Maine law for §353 purposes. |
| What test determines employment status for §353 discrimination claims in temporary staffing arrangements. | Doughty relies on the traditional eight-factor test (Larson) showing a contract of hire with Poland Spring. | The hearing officer properly used the absence of a contract for hire with Poland Spring to deny §353 relief. | Traditional eight-factor test governs whether an employment relationship exists for §353 discrimination claims. |
| Is §104 immunity governing temporary help agencies controlling discrimination claims against client employers? | Section 104’s immunity should not shield Poland Spring from §353 discrimination liability when a dual/lent-employer exists. | §104 immunity may shield the client/employer from civil suits but does not resolve §353 status if no contract exists. | §104 does not override §353’s employment-status inquiry for discrimination against the client; dual/lent-employer analysis applies. |
| What is the availability of MHRA claims when §353 applies to Poland Spring? | Doughty sought MHRA relief after §353 denial. | MHRA relief is precluded when §4572 excludes §353 cases that arise from workers’ compensation claims. | MHRA remedies are foreclosed where the claim arises from exercising workers’ compensation rights under §353. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcoux v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 2005 ME 107 (Me. 2005) (discusses employment status and immunity test under §104 when control is in question)
- Bourette v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 481 A.2d 170 (Me. 1984) (control test cannot replace statutory contract-for-hire when determining employment status under the Act)
- Timberlake v. Frigon & Frigon, 438 A.2d 1294 (Me. 1982) (eight-factor test for determining employment status (contract of hire))