MHRC investigator backs Stetson woman

AUGUSTA – An investigator with the Maine Human Rights Commission found reasonable grounds for a Stetson woman’s claims that a Brewer veterinary clinic fired her because she was pregnant.

And in a separate case, another investigator recommended the panel find reasonable grounds for a South Thomaston woman’s claims that an Augusta printing business fired her because she complained about sexual discrimination.

The commission is expected to rule on both cases and several others when it meets Jan. 22.

Alicia Collins of Stetson claims she was discharged from her position as head technician by Eastern Maine Emergency Veterinary Clinic because she was pregnant.

Collins was hired at the clinic in August 2002, then became head technician in October 2002. She was terminated in February 2005 when she was told the position had been abolished.

According to investigator Brenda Haskell’s report, other technicians complained to the veterinarians who operate the clinic that Collins was being unfair in scheduling them for work, giving herself nights off. In explaining their move to eliminate the job held by Collins, the veterinarians told the investigator they wanted to have an office manager instead of a head technician.

But Collins countered that when she reported being pregnant to the clinic’s board of directors and Dr. T., the veterinarian responded in an e-mail: “don’t you know it is against EMEVC policy to get pregnant … ever! (Maybe I made that up…).”

The veterinarian told the investigator his e-mail was a “lighthearted” response to the pregnancy announcement.

Haskell concluded that despite the veterinarian’s claims, “there is no independent evidence that a major reorganization was in the works.” The investigator also noted that “It was clear that the timing of [Collins’] maternity leave was going to be difficult for the practice. Within a week her job was abruptly eliminated.”

Haskell also wrote that the clinic might have moved Collins to a technician position but “it appears that there was more interest in ending her employment than in transitioning it.”

In a separate case, investigator Gail Flibbert recommended the panel find in favor of Jane Karker of South Thomaston in her complaint of being terminated by J.S. McCarthy Co. of Augusta for complaining about sexual discrimination and unfair wage policies.

Karker was hired at the company in 1998. New owners took over in 2000.

In May 2005, the owners created a new policy that meant “the financial burden of any credit memos issued after 60 days will be shared equally between the company and the salesperson,” according to the investigator’s report.

Karker questioned the legality of this policy at a company meeting.

The business owners said that Karker misunderstood the policy and that she would not be asked to share in revenue losses due to unpaid bills.

Karker later complained of sexual discrimination because her desk was moved to an alcove, segregated from male employees.

The business owners denied discriminating against Karker, and said she never filed a complaint of sexual discrimination.

The investigator, however, said in her report that the company’s director of information technology confirmed that Karker formally complained of sexual discrimination regarding the seat reassignment.

The investigator concluded that there are not reasonable grounds to believe Karker was subjected to sexual discrimination, but that she was terminated and discriminated against in retaliation for complaining about the credit policy and the perceived sexual discrimination.

If the commission finds reasonable grounds to the claims, the cases proceed to conciliation hearings. If that process fails to find resolution, the claims can proceed to Superior Court, where financial awards may be made.