Ruling favors hot line for men Suit claims group discriminatory

BANGOR – A legal dispute between an abused men’s hot line and the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence could be headed for trial after a Maine Superior Court justice last month denied the coalition’s motion to dismiss the discrimination lawsuit.

The Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and a person identified as John Doe in September sued the coalition in Penobscot County Superior Court after it received a “right to sue” letter from the Maine Human Rights Commission. The commissioners were not able to consider the complaint within the required time limit.

“We’re not looking to penalize the coalition,” Ferdnand “Andy” Slater of Ellsworth said last week. “What we’re looking for and hoping for are equal services for men. The coalition is resisting that by not allowing the hot line membership in the coalition.”

The suit claims that the coalition discriminates against men and their children because it denied membership to the men’s hot line.

The hot line is seeking a declaratory judgment against the coalition as well as compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

The hot line wants to join the coalition because it is the gatekeeper of federal and state grant money, Slater said last year when the suit was filed.

Its bylaws state that to be a member of the coalition, organizations must “provide a full range of services to battered women and their children,” but does not mention giving assistance to men, the attorney said.

The coalition’s attorney, Thad Zmistowski of Bangor, said Monday that the case may not be headed for trial.

“We’re obviously disappointed in the court’s ruling, in particular the two threshold issues we raised in our motion,” he said. “The first is whether a corporation [such as the coalition] has a gender identity sufficient to trigger the protections of Maine Human Rights Act. The second is whether plaintiff John Doe, who brought no claim before the Maine Human Rights Commission, is nonetheless entitled to pursue an action in Superior Court.

“So, we this day requested that the Superior Court report these two threshold issues to the [Maine Supreme Judicial Court] for early decision, and we are hopeful that the court will grant our request,” he said.

Zmistowski added that asking Superior Court Justice Jeffrey Hjelm to seek a Law Court review of his ruling is unusual.

It is up to Hjelm to decide whether his denial of the motion to dismiss the lawsuit should be reviewed by the state’s high court. If he rejects the idea, the case most likely will proceed to trial later this year.