In a surprising move, the Maine Legislature has taken it upon itself to resolve any ambiguity created by the Law Court's decisions last year in Gordan v. Cummings regarding individual liability under the Maine Human Rights Act.  You may recall that in April, 2000, a sharply divided Law Court departed from federal precedent and ruled that individual supervisors could be held personally liable for MHRA violations.  Reconsidering the case just four months later, however, the Court revised its opinion so as to avoid the issue of individual liability altogether.  The Law Court's subtle message to Maine employers?  That imposing "individual liability" is not necessarily the rule in Maine, but it is definitely an idea on the Court's mind.

In an effort to resolve this uncertainty, a bill has been introduced in the Maine Legislature to amend the MHRA to expressly bar discrimination claims against individual agents of a defendant-employer, namely supervisors.  Put forward by Rep. Willaim Schneider (R-Durham), the bill in its original form proposes to strike from the MHRA's definition of "employer" the phrase "any person acting in the interest of any employer, directly or indirectly."  It further proposes to add a new section to the MHRA, providing that "[a]n individual acting as agent of, or in the interest of, an employer is not personally liable for actions that constitute unlawful employment discrimination."

Currently, the bill, known as L.D. 1599, has been considered by the Legislature's Joint Standing Committee on the Judiciary, which is chaired by Sen. Anne Rand (D-Portland) and Rep. Charles LaVerdiere (D-Wilton).  In early April, a public hearing on the bill was held in during which representatives of the Maine Chamber of Commerce, Florida Power and Light, and the State Department of Administration and Finance voiced their support L.D. 1599.  Among those speaking against the bill were representatives of the AFL-CIO of Maine and the Maine Women's Lobby.  A representative of the MHRA spoke neither for nor against the legislation.

Despite this showing of support, the Judiciary Committee, like the Law Court, appears to be sharply divided on the issue of individual liability.  While several members of the Committee support L.D. 1599's original intent, just as many oppose granting any exception from the MHRA for individual supervisors.  Still a third faction of the Committee seems to favor limiting the circumstances under which an individual supervisor may be exempted.  Though the Committee's final recommendation on the bill remains conflicted, one thing is clear: individual liability under the MHRA is a hotly-contested issue in the Maine Legislature which will undoubtedly be fought out in the coming weeks on the Senate and House floors.