Maine — Workplace Discrimination

The Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibits employment discrimination based on a broad list of protected characteristics. Following a material amendment in 2021 (P.L. 2021, c. 366), the MHRA now explicitly includes gender identity, in addition to race, color, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, age (without minimum or maximum threshold), ancestry, national origin, genetic information (previously labeled as genetic predisposition), and familial status. The Act applies to all employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees in Maine, with no minimum employee threshold—making its coverage broader than federal Title VII, which generally requires 15 employees for coverage. The MHRA also expressly prohibits retaliation against individuals who oppose practices violating the Act or who participate in MHRA proceedings.

Protected classes under current law:

• Race
• Color
• Sex
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity (explicit as of 2021 amendment)
• Physical or mental disability
• Religion
• Age (any age)
• Ancestry
• National origin
• Genetic information
• Familial status

Authority and effective date:

• Gender identity was explicitly listed as a protected class in employment by legislative amendment effective in 2021 (P.L. 2021, c. 366, §5).

Source: 5 M.R.S. § 4553, 5 M.R.S. § 4571, 5 M.R.S. § 4572

A complaint alleging unlawful discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act must be filed with the Maine Human Rights Commission within 300 days after the alleged act of discrimination. This administrative filing deadline applies to all claims under the Act, including employment discrimination based on any of the protected classes. The complaint must be filed under oath, stating the facts concerning the alleged discrimination.

Source: 5 M.R.S. § 4611

When a court finds that unlawful discrimination occurred under the Maine Human Rights Act, it may order a wide range of remedies under 5 M.R.S. § 4613(2)(B). The remedies structure differs significantly depending on whether the case involves employment discrimination against an employer with more than 14 employees, and whether the discrimination was intentional.

## Equitable and injunctive relief

All discrimination cases support equitable remedies, which include: (1) cease-and-desist orders; (2) employment or reinstatement of the victim, with or without back pay; (3) reinstatement in a labor union; and related equitable relief. These remedies are available regardless of employer size or the nature of the violation. Back pay and interest on back pay remain available without statutory cap as part of equitable relief.

## Civil penal damages

For unlawful discrimination other than employment discrimination cases where the respondent has more than 14 employees, the court may order civil penal damages on a tiered scale based on the respondent's violation history under the MHRA. Under 5 M.R.S. § 4613(2)(B)(7), the caps are:

• First violation: up to $20,000
• Second violation arising under the same subchapter: up to $50,000
• Third or subsequent violation arising under the same subchapter: up to $100,000

The total civil penal damages awarded in any single action may not exceed these per-violation limits. These civil penal damages may be paid to the victim, to the Maine Human Rights Commission if it brought the action, or to both.

## Compensatory and punitive damages for intentional employment discrimination

In cases of intentional employment discrimination where the respondent has more than 14 employees, a different damages regime applies under 5 M.R.S. § 4613(2)(B)(8). The complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages, subject to combined caps that vary by employer size.

Compensatory damages under this provision cover future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. Compensatory damages do not include back pay, interest on back pay, or other relief authorized elsewhere in the statute—those remain available without limit as equitable relief under subsection (2).

Punitive damages are available if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in discriminatory practices "with malice or with reckless indifference" to the rights protected by the MHRA, under 5 M.R.S. § 4613(2)(B)(8)(c). Punitive damages may not be awarded against a governmental entity (as defined in 14 M.R.S. § 8102(2)) or against a governmental employee acting within the scope of employment.

Combined caps on compensatory and punitive damages for intentional employment discrimination, per complaining party, under 5 M.R.S. § 4613(2)(B)(8)(e), are:

• 15–100 employees: $50,000
• 101–200 employees: $100,000
• 201–500 employees: $300,000
• More than 500 employees: $500,000

The employee count is measured by the number of employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, mirroring the federal Title VII counting methodology. The jury may not be informed of these caps under subsection (8)(g), and the caps do not apply to disparate-impact cases under subsection (8)(h).

## Actual damages in housing discrimination

For discriminatory housing practices, courts may order actual and punitive damages in addition to the other remedies listed above, under 5 M.R.S. § 4613(2)(B)(9). The statute clarifies that this provision does not limit actual damages available to plaintiffs alleging other forms of discrimination if actual damages are otherwise available under the Act. The same governmental-entity punitive-damages exclusion applies.

## Procedural notes

If a complaining party seeks compensatory or punitive damages under subsection (8), any party may demand a trial by jury. Attorney's fees and costs are separately authorized under 5 M.R.S. § 4614 for prevailing parties.

The Maine remedies framework is broader than federal law in key respects. Maine's MHRA applies to all employers with no minimum employee threshold for coverage (unlike Title VII's 15-employee floor), so the tiered civil penal damages for small-employer and non-employment cases create exposure not present under federal law. For larger employers, the combined compensatory-plus-punitive caps under Maine law mirror the federal structure but may stack with federal damages if claims are brought under both statutes.

Source: 5 M.R.S. § 4613

Under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), 5 M.R.S. § 4572 prohibits a comprehensive set of employment practices that constitute unlawful discrimination against applicants and employees based on a growing list of protected characteristics. The statute was materially amended in 2025 (effective with Public Law 2025, ch. 269, § 1) to explicitly include “gender identity,” “familial status,” and actions relating to orders of protection as additional grounds for protection, reflecting broader policy shifts toward comprehensive workplace equity.

Key Prohibited Actions (post-2025 amendment):

• Hiring, discharge, and other employment actions: Employers in Maine may not refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate against any individual in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental disability, religion, age, ancestry, national origin, familial status, genetic information, or for having sought or obtained an order of protection under Title 19-A or equivalent statutes (5 M.R.S. § 4572(1)(A)).

• Discriminatory agency use and referring: The MHRA bars employment agencies and labor organizations from classifying, referring, or failing/refusing to refer for employment anyone in a manner that limits opportunities based on these protected grounds (5 M.R.S. § 4572(1)(B)-(C)).

• Discriminatory employment advertising: Posting or circulating job advertisements or notices that express any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on a protected category—now including gender identity, familial status, and status as an order-of-protection petitioner or recipient—is unlawful (5 M.R.S. § 4572(1)(D)).

• Pre-employment inquiries and recordkeeping: Routine pre-employment questions or recordkeeping about these protected categories, except where legally required, are prohibited (5 M.R.S. § 4572(1)(E)).

• Retaliation: The MHRA continues to bar retaliation against individuals opposing unlawful practices or participating in investigation or proceedings under the Act (5 M.R.S. § 4572(1)(F)).

• Harassment as discrimination: While § 4572 does not use the term “harassment,” the Maine Human Rights Commission and controlling case law recognize that harassment creating a hostile work environment or causing tangible employment actions based on these characteristics constitutes prohibited discrimination (see 94-348 C.M.R. ch. 3, § 3).

2025 update: The 2025 amendment’s explicit inclusion of gender identity, familial status, and order-of-protection status materially expands the statute’s reach beyond its prior text and should be carefully noted in compliance practices.

Source: 5 M.R.S. § 4572, 94-348 C.M.R. ch. 3, § 3

When a complaint is filed with the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC), a sequence of investigation, possible settlement, and potential Commission or private action follows.

Administrative complaint and tolling the limitations period: A private lawsuit under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) must generally be filed within 2 years after the alleged discriminatory act. However, if the complainant files a timely administrative complaint with the MHRC (within 300 days per 5 M.R.S. § 4611), this 2-year limitations period is tolled—that is, paused—while the administrative process is pending.

When does the limitations clock resume? Per 5 M.R.S. § 4613(2)(C), the two-year period resumes when the first of the following occurs:

• The Commission dismisses the complaint,
• The Commission finds reasonable grounds and fails to achieve conciliation within 90 days,
• The Commission issues a right-to-sue letter at the complainant’s request (after 180 days, per § 4612(6)), or
• The complainant receives written notice that the Commission will not pursue the complaint and the case is administratively closed.

A right-to-sue letter is not required in all cases as a precondition to pursuing a private civil action. The statute allows the individual to file suit once any of the enumerated administrative endpoints occurs. Time spent in the MHRC’s process is excluded from the 2-year limitation window, but only if the administrative complaint was timely under § 4611. If no such complaint is filed, the limitation window is not tolled and may expire.

Summary of enforcement steps:

1. After filing, the Commission may investigate, seek settlement, and if appropriate, pursue a public action (see 5 M.R.S. § 4612).
2. If the Commission finds no reasonable grounds, it dismisses the case.
3. After 180 days, or earlier upon good cause, a complainant may request a right-to-sue letter.
4. Damages and attorney’s fees are available only if the party properly exhausted the Commission process or timely obtained a right-to-sue letter before filing suit (see 5 M.R.S. § 4622(1)).

Source: 5 M.R.S. § 4613(2)(C), 5 M.R.S. § 4612

The Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) creates two distinct carve-outs for nonprofit religious organizations with respect to employment discrimination law. Both are closely defined and only apply when the entity is (a) nonprofit, (b) not organized or conducted for private profit, and (c) does not receive public funds under 5 M.R.S. § 4553(10)(G)-(H).

1. Nonprofit religious employer exclusion for in-faith hiring — § 4553(4)(B): A nonprofit religious or fraternal corporation/association is not considered an "employer" under the MHRA with respect to employment of individuals of the same religion, except for claims involving disability discrimination. That is, such an organization may prefer or restrict employment to coreligionists when hiring for religious positions. However, for purposes of disability discrimination, the MHRA does treat even a faith-based nonprofit as an employer.

2. Sexual orientation/gender identity carve-out — § 4553(10)(G)-(H): Maine's prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity includes a specific exemption: a religious corporation, association, or organization that does not receive public funds is not required to comply with MHRA's sexual orientation or gender identity provisions in employment (as well as housing and education settings). This exception does not extend to entities that are organized for private profit, to subsidiary for-profits of religious groups (as referenced by connection to IRC § 511(a)), or to any religious body that receives public funds.

3. Religious preference and tenet requirement — § 4573-A(2): A nonprofit religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society may lawfully prefer employment of individuals of its same religion for roles tied to carrying out its activities, and may require applicants/employees to conform to its religious tenets. This permission is not a categorical exemption from the MHRA’s general coverage, but a statutorily recognized condition attached to certain faith-based roles in nonprofit, non-publicly funded contexts.

Limits by statutory prong:

• The § 4553(4)(B) carve-out is limited to in-faith hiring, and does not apply to disability discrimination claims.
• The § 4553(10)(G)-(H) SOGI exemption applies only where the religious body is nonprofit, not a for-profit entity or a for-profit owned/controlled by a religious organization (per IRC § 511(a)), and does not receive public funds.
• The § 4573-A(2) preference only authorizes hiring/firing based on religious faith and conformance for roles connected to carrying out religious activities, for eligible nonprofit religious entities.

Source: 5 M.R.S. § 4553, 5 M.R.S. § 4573-A

Maine's Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibits employers of any size from discriminating against employees or job applicants on the basis of age, without imposing any minimum or maximum age threshold for protection. This is a key divergence from the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which extends protection only to persons aged 40 or older and leaves younger workers outside its shield (29 U.S.C. § 631(a)).

Text of the MHRA — all ages protected 5 M.R.S. § 4571 requires employers to ensure equal employment opportunities without discrimination based on "age." Unlike the ADEA, the statute does not define "age" with reference to a specific lower or upper limit, nor does it restrict protection to older or younger workers. The implementing definitions in 5 M.R.S. § 4553(8)(F) simply include "age" among the protected characteristics. There is no parallel to the ADEA's "40 or older" language, and no carve-out for age groups at either end of the spectrum. In absence of a defined threshold, the ordinary-meaning principle governs: employers should not treat individuals unfairly because of being too young or too old for a role, unless another statutory rule applies.

BFOQ exception There is a narrow, statutorily defined exception to age protection under the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense at 5 M.R.S. § 4573-A(1)(A). An employer may "take action otherwise prohibited...with respect to age...if age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise." The standard requires an objective, business-necessity showing—not stereotypes about what workers of a certain age can or cannot do. Courts in Maine have not published an age-BFOQ decision limiting protection to only older or younger workers, nor has the Maine Human Rights Commission set a contrary agency guidance.

Takeaway for employers Because Maine law does not set a lower age threshold, both younger and older employees are protected from age-based discrimination. Employers should avoid employment decisions based on age unless they can demonstrate a BFOQ under § 4573-A(1)(A).

Source: 5 M.R.S. § 4571, 5 M.R.S. § 4553(8), 5 M.R.S. § 4573-A(1)(A)