By Michael K. Mahoney, Esq.

Last month, the 122^nd Maine Legislature wrapped-up its First Regular Session. 

Perhaps more than in any other area of the law, labor and employment issues engendered sharp partisan responses from both Republicans and Democrats this session, where the latter party held slim majorities in both the House of Representatives (76-73, with 1 Independent and 1 Green Party member) and the Senate (19-16).  Some issues affecting Maine employers involved the following four bills: 

L.D. 1196, An Act to Extend Civil Rights Protections to All People Regardless of Sexual Orientation (Sen. Turner – Cumberland).  One of the most publicized pieces of legislation this session, this bill sought to add “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes under Maine’s Human Rights Act.  In essence, the bill would forbid the denial of rights in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education opportunity to individuals based on their sexual orientation.  Supporters of the bill argued, among other things, that Maine employers needed this legislation in order to remain competitive with the other New England states, all of which have already barred employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.  After receiving support from nine of 13 Judiciary Committee members, the bill was taken up by the full Legislature, where it received strong support in the Senate, but only narrowly survived a proposed amendment in the House that would have required voter ratification of the measure.  Following the Governor’s signature, opponents of the bill began collecting signatures in an effort to put on the November 2006 ballot a referendum question that, if approved at the polls, would repeal the Legislature’s action.  Spearheaded by the Maine Christian Civic League, which in the last ten years has successfully defeated two past ballot initiatives seeking to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation, the signature collection effort was successful.  Thus, the issue of whether the protections afforded by Maine’s Human Rights Act should be extended to cover sexual orientation will once again be decided by Maine voters this fall.        

L.D. 309, An Act to Remove the Sunset on Part-Time Unemployment Insurance Benefits (Rep. Smith – Van Buren).  This bill sought to make permanent the expansion of unemployment benefit eligibility to workers who have a history of primarily part-time work, who are laid off, and who are able and available for part-time work.  This provision was originally enacted in 2004, but is scheduled to sunset in Sept. 2005.  Following a lengthy and often contentious public hearing, the Labor Committee voted along party lines, 8-5, in favor of the bill.  Once on the floor, the bill was amended to extend the current expansion of eligibility to September, 2008 rather than to make it permanent.  The  House and Senate, in a close vote along party lines, also supported the creation of a pilot program within the Department of Labor designed to provide education and training for unemployed part-time workers.      

L.D. 435, An Act to Conform Maine to Federal Overtime Standards (Rep. McKane -- Edgecomb).  As its title indicates, this bill sought to conform Maine to the same standards of overtime regulation to which the federal government and other states do.  The bill was presented in response to rules recently promulgated by the Maine Department of Labor providing, among other things, that “any employee in a position that had or should have had the right to overtime” prior to the adoption of new federal overtime standards earlier in 2004 “will maintain that right.”  At the public hearing, proponents of the legislation argued that the inconsistencies between Maine’s and the federal overtime standards create confusion and further enhance Maine’s reputation as a “business-unfriendly” state.  Opponents of the bill, including the State Department of Labor, replied that over 20 states have overtime laws that differ from the federal standards, and that in resolving differences between state and federal law in any particular case, an employer need only look to whichever law provides more protection for the workers.  After the hearing, the Labor Committee voted 6-5 against the bill, with two Committee members absent.  The Democratically-controlled House and Senate followed suit, voting to kill the bill in a close vote along party lines.  

L.D. 1044, An Act to Care for Families (Sen. Edmonds – Cumberland).  A less ambitious version of a proposal raised last session, this bill will require employers with 25 or more employees who provide paid leave to permit employees to use that leave to care for an immediate family member (child, spouse or parent) who is ill.  As amended, the bill permits employers to limit the number of hours an employee may use for this purpose to 40 per year, and removes a provision originally in the bill that had imposed monetary penalties on employers’ for their non-compliance with this measure.             

L.D.  1102, An Act to Connect the BETR Program with Job Retention  (Rep. Clark – Millinocket).  Brought back again after being defeated last session, this bill would  require employers receiving benefits under the Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement (BETR) Program to refund a portion of those benefits in the event that they have a workforce reduction.  A reduction of 1-75 workers, for example, would require a 25% refund of BETR benefits, while a reduction of 250 workers or more would require 100% reimbursement.  Late in the session, and in the midst of other measures seeking to alter the BETR program, the bill was carried over for further consideration during the Second Regular Session, set to begin in January, 2006.