State Snapshot
BASIC RULE
In Maine, workers’ compensation is an employee’s sole legal remedy for a work-related injury. 39-A M.R.S. § 104. This is the case for all personal injuries and deaths or occupational diseases that arise out of and in the course of employment.
This means that an injured employee cannot sue his employer in tort, thus protecting the employer from civil claims for monetary damages, or damages for pain and suffering.
TORT LAWSUITS AGAINST CO-EMPLOYEES
The rule protects not only the employer from personal injury lawsuits, but also co-workers, officers, supervisors, and directors.
INTENTIONAL INJURIES
Maine generally does not recognize an exception to the exclusivity rule based on intentional injuries, other than those related to sexual conduct (see below).
SEXUAL HARASSMENT, SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RELATED INTENTIONAL TORTS
Maine has an exception that is written into its statute for sexual misconduct. This allows the victim to sue a co-employee in tort for:
- Sexual harassment;
- Sexual assault; and
- Intentional torts related to sexual harassment or sexual assault.
DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS
The exclusivity rule does not apply to civil actions brought under the Maine Human Rights Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
GROSS NEGLIGENCE, WILLFUL MISCONDUCT
Maine does not have an exception to exclusivity for injuries that are caused by the employer’s gross negligence, reckless conduct, willful or wanton misconduct, or deliberate safety violations
THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS
The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to lawsuits against third parties, such as:
- Product manufacturers
- Negligent drivers
- Outside contractors
- Property owners (if not protected by employer immunity).
For example, if the employee is struck by a car driven by a member of the public while the employee is on the clock, the rule does not bar the lawsuit against the driver. To take another example, if an employee is injured during work by defective equipment that is manufactured by another company, the employee may still sue that other company.
EMPLOYER FAILS TO SECURE COVERAGE
If an employer fails to maintain the mandatory workers’ compensation insurance required by law, it forfeits its tort immunity. The injured worker can file a tort claim against his employer.
ILLEGALLY EMPLOYER MINORS
The rule does not apply to an illegally employed minor. A minor injured while working in violation of state labor laws retains the right to sue the employer in tort.
DUAL PERSONA DOCTRINE
An employer may be sued if it possesses a second legal persona completely independent of its status as employer, creating duties unrelated to the employment relationship. This may apply where the employer acts through a legally separate entity with independent obligations.
EMPLOYERS USING STAFFING AGENCIES
A company utilizing a staffing agency for temporary labor receives the same tort immunity as a direct employer, provided the staffing agency has workers’ compensation coverage
RECENT CASES
Burnett v. Ocean Properties, Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-00359-JAW (D. Maine 10/23/18)
The court denied Ocean Properties’ motion to exclude evidence that the employee injured his wrist while attempting to open the heavy door at issue in his ADA failure-to-accommodate claim. Ocean Properties argued that the evidence was irrelevant because the alleged workplace injury was subject exclusively to the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act. The employee agreed that he could not recover damages for the injury under the ADA and had never pursued a workers’ compensation claim, but argued that the evidence was relevant to demonstrate the reasonableness of his request for an accommodation. The court agreed, ruling that the exclusivity provision did not bar the evidence because it was not being offered to recover for the injury, but rather to show that the heavy doors created a genuine accessibility problem, making his requested accommodation reasonable.
Doughty v. Work Opportunities Unlimited/Leddy Group, 33 A.3d 410 (Maine 2011)
A worker was employed by a temp agency and assigned to work at Poland Spring, where he was injured and then removed from the assignment. Although Poland Spring directed his day-to-day work, the court concluded that he was an employee only of the staffing agency because no express or implied contract of hire existed between him and Poland Spring. The Court rejected the argument that the client company’s statutory immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act automatically made it an employer subject to the Act’s anti-discrimination provision. It explained that the Act’s tort immunity for special employers does not create a corresponding right to sue them for workers’ compensation discrimination/retaliation. Instead, the discrimination claim against the client company had to proceed under the Maine Human Rights Act.
EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEARBY STATES
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
