Sec. 1. 5 MRSA §4553, sub-§4, as amended by PL 1995, c. 393, §5, is further amended to read:

4. Employer. "Employer" includes any person in this State employing any number of employees, whatever the place of employment of the employees, and any person outside this State employing any number of employees whose usual place of employment is in this State; any person acting in the interest of any employer, directly or indirectly; and labor organizations, whether or not organized on a religious, fraternal or sectarian basis, with respect to their employment of employees. "Employer" does not include a religious or fraternal corporation or association, not organized for private profit and in fact not conducted for private profit, with respect to employment of its members of the same religion, sect or fraternity, except for purposes of disability-related discrimination, in which case the corporation or association is considered to be an employer.

Sec. 2. 5 MRSA §4572-B is enacted to read:

§4572-B.__Liability for actions of agents

An individual acting as agent of, or in the interest of, an employer is not personally liable for actions that constitute unlawful employment discrimination.__Liability of the employer for unlawful employment discrimination by that employer's agent or a person acting in the interest of that employer is determined by reference to general common law principles of agency and respondeat superior.

SUMMARY

This bill clarifies employment discrimination provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act.

Under the Maine Human Rights Act, the definition of "employer" includes "any person acting in the interest of any employer, directly or indirectly." Since its enactment in 1971, the Maine Human Rights Commission, Maine's lower courts, and the judges of the United States District Court in Maine have interpreted "persons acting in the interest of the employer" to mean that employers are liable for the acts of their agents, including specifically supervisory employees, in accordance with established principles of agency law. They did not interpret this definition to mean that the agents themselves were separately, personally liable. Ten of 12 United States Circuit Courts of Appeals have considered this issue under the analogous