John G. Pappas v. Steen H. Leask

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAINE BUSINESS AND CONSUMER COURT Cumberland, ss. Location: Portland Docket No.: BCD-CV-15-07 / ) ) JOHN G. PAPPAS, ) Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) STEVEN H. LEASK d/b/a Southgate Restaurant, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER ON DEFENDAl"\TTS MOTION TO APPROVE ATTORNEY FEES Defendant has filed a Motion to Approve Attorney Fees, and the Plaintiff has filed a timely opposition. The Maine Human Rights Act allows for an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party, 5 M.R.S. § 4614. However, following the lead of federal courts that have interpreted the attorney fee provision of the counterpart federal statute, Maine com·ts have typically awarded attorney fees to prevailing defendants only "upon a finding that the plaintiffs action was frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation, even though not brought in subjective bad faith." Grant v. Camp Powhatten Partners/tip, 1994 Me. Super. LEXIS 92 (Oxf. Cty. 1978), quoting Christiansbmg Garment Co. v. E.E.0.C., 4.'H U.S. 412, ·1·21 ( 1978). Here, althoug·h Defendant ultimately prevailed, the timing of Defendant's decision to terminate the Plaintiff, coming the day after Plaintiff suffered a seizure at work, was suspicious from any reasonable point of view, and in no sense can it be said that Plaintiffs claim was frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation. Defendant's Motion to Approve Attorney Fees is denied. l Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this Order by dJltf~~ reference in the docket. Dated July 25, 2016 A. M. Horton, Justice Entered on lhe Dockol: 7.-;; l,, -J 7 Coples senr via Mall_ Eleclmnlcally 2 _ ,Y

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.