Kyle Berounsky v. Oceanside Rubbish, Inc., 266 A.3d 284

Berounsky, diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and PTSD, disclosed his disabilities when hired as a trash hauler and later applied for promotion to truck driver.
On December 8, 2017, at a meeting with Oceanside’s owner and HR, he was told office women were "afraid of him because of [his] Asperger’s" and that he could not return to work without the owner’s permission.
He attempted follow-up (including a December 26 contact with HR and efforts to reach the owner) but received no return communication; Oceanside later told an unemployment hearing officer that he was "laid off."
Berounsky filed for unemployment on January 1, 2018, filed an MHRC complaint on February 18, 2018, which the MHRC dismissed on July 26, 2019, and then filed suit (ADA and MHRA claims) on January 7, 2020, after removal and remand.
The Superior Court dismissed the MHRA discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims as time-barred under the MHRA’s limitations rules; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Berounsky’s MHRA discrimination claim was timely under the 2-year rule (when did the limitations period begin)?	The December 8 meeting did not put him on notice of discrimination; he believed there would be an investigation and thought any layoff was temporary.	The December 8 meeting was an unambiguous, authoritative discriminatory act that put a reasonable claimant on notice and thus started the 2-year clock.	The court held the 2-year limitations period began at the December 8, 2017 meeting; the MHRA claims were time-barred.
Whether the failure-to-accommodate claim survives (timeliness and preservation on appeal)?	(Briefed minimally) Implicitly challenges dismissal.	The claim was waived on appeal and, on the merits, lacks alleged dates showing a timely request/denial and is therefore time-barred.	The court found the failure-to-accommodate argument waived and in any event time-barred for lack of timely alleged dates.

LePage v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 909 A.2d 629 (Me. 2006) (two-year limitation begins when plaintiff receives unambiguous, authoritative notice of discriminatory act).
Nadeau v. Frydrych, 108 A.3d 1254 (Me. 2014) (complaint facts treated as admitted on motion to dismiss; legal sufficiency reviewed de novo).
Kezer v. Cent. Me. Med. Ctr., 40 A.3d 955 (Me. 2012) (earlier notice of discrimination can trigger limitations even if employer later changes position).
Higgins v. TJX Cos., 331 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D. Me. 2004) (adverse employment action includes material changes to conditions of employment, such as temporary layoff).
Moody v. State Liquor & Lottery Comm’n, 843 A.2d 43 (Me. 2004) (court may consider documents referenced in the complaint on a motion to dismiss).