Kezer v. Central Maine Medical Center
2012 ME 54
| Me. | 2012Background
- Kezer, a nurse with functional hearing loss, was hired by Central Maine Medical Center in 2004 to work on the SSU and respond to patient alarms.
- Alarms concerns were raised in 2005; Kezer reassured supervisors that his hearing was not an issue, but alarms were monitored for safety.
- Kezer injured his left shoulder in August 2005 and received work restrictions limiting lifting to 30 pounds, later narrowed to 10 pounds by his doctor.
- In early 2006, Kezer faced a performance plan and a related job-offer that was withdrawn; he left on medical leave January 10, 2006.
- Kezer filed a discrimination complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission around February 7, 2006; CMMC was notified February 14, 2006, and Kezer returned briefly to a QA role before resigning March 30, 2006.
- Kezer filed suit in Superior Court October 30, 2007, alleging MHRA discrimination related to his hearing impairment and shoulder injury; a jury found adverse action but not failure to accommodate for hearing or shoulder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction on statute of limitations was erroneous | Kezer argues limitations begin anew with renewed denials per Tobin. | CMMC contends the instruction followed LePage and Tobin, binding the two-year window to unambiguous notice. | No prejudice; error non-prejudicial despite misinstruction. |
| Whether MHRA requires a good faith interactive process instruction | MHRA imposes a duty to engage in a good faith interactive process to identify accommodations. | MHRA does not require such interactive process; the instruction would misstate the law. | Court did not err in declining to give that instruction. |
| Whether attorney fees were properly awarded | Kezer prevailed on a disability discrimination claim and sought higher fees. | Trial court reasonably reduced fees due to limited success and scope of claims. | Attorney fee award not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- LePage v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 2006 ME 130 (Me. 2006) (start of limitations when unambiguous notice of discriminatory act given)
- Tobin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 553 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2009) (subsequent renewal denials may be new discrete acts for limitations purposes)
- WahlcoMetroflex, Inc. v. Baldwin, 2010 ME 26 (Me. 2010) (review of jury instructions for fairness and correctness)
- Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1980) (limitations periods typically begin when the employer's decision is made)
- Bang s v. Town of Wells, 834 A.2d 955 (Me. 2003) (evaluates fee-shifting and reasonableness in narrow success contexts)
- McLain v. Training & Dev. Corp., 572 A.2d 494 (Me. 1990) (context for surviving jury instruction errors can still yield affirmed judgment)
- Sharp v. United Airlines, Inc., 236 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2001) (refusal to undo a discriminatory decision not a fresh act of discrimination)