A New Protected Class in Maine: Holders of Final Protection Orders

In the lead-up to Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, employers may be taking a closer look at how their policies and practices respond to domestic violence in the workplace. That review should include one addition to Maine’s anti-discrimination law that received comparatively little attention amid the more visible employment law changes of the past year—pay-range postings, expanded subpoena power, a noncompete ban, and new disclosure requirements and restrictions on employer surveillance. The Maine Human Rights Act now protects individuals from employment discrimination based on their receipt of a final protection order. For employers, the operational lift is modest, but the exposure for getting it wrong is not.

What Changed

Maine’s anti-discrimination statute, 5 M.R.S. § 4572, was amended by Public Law 2025, chapter 269, to add receipt of a final protection order—commonly called a “PFA” or “Protection from Abuse” order—to the list of protected characteristics in employment. A final protection order is issued under 19-A M.R.S. § 4110 after notice and hearing to a person who has been abused or credibly threatened by a family or household member. Seeking and obtaining a final protection order is now, itself, a protected status. It joins the MHRA’s established employment categories, including race, color, national origin, ancestry, age, religion, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity, genetic information, familial status, whistleblower-protected activity, and the assertion of a workers’ compensation claim.

What It Prohibits

Because this is a new protected class rather than a standalone statute, it “plugs into” the MHRA’s existing prohibitions and enforcement structure. That means an employer may not, because an applicant or employee holds a final protection order:

• Fail or refuse to hire, or discharge, that person;
• Discriminate in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including hiring, tenure, promotion, transfer, scheduling, and similar decisions;
• Use application forms or pre-employment inquiries that directly or indirectly probe protected status; or
• Retaliate against the person for asserting rights under the Act.

The reach extends beyond the direct employer to employment agencies and employment advertising that signals any preference or limitation. In short, the full machinery of the MHRA now stands behind this status.

Where the Real Risk Lives

Very few employers will set out to discriminate against someone for protecting themselves from domestic abuse by obtaining a court order. But the risk here is often not a deliberate policy; it is the reflexive reaction. When an employee discloses a protection order—or when one surfaces because the protected person needs a schedule change or warns that the subject of the order may come to the workplace—supervisors may instinctively treat the situation as a problem to be solved or a liability to be managed. That can lead to legally risky assumptions about reliability, availability, safety, or future workplace disruption.

Employers should not fall into that trap. The disclosure that is meant to keep everyone safe cannot become the reason the employee loses hours, opportunities, a promotion, or a job. It should be met with compassion, confidentiality, and coordination—not different treatment. Managers and HR should understand this change and have a clear plan for what to do if an employee presents a final protection order and asserts this protected status.

Separating Safety From Penalty

None of this prevents an employer from responding to genuine workplace-safety concerns, such as a situation where the person subject to the order appears at the worksite. Employers can and should take reasonable protective steps, including coordinating with security, adjusting workplace entry procedures, and planning for possible confrontation or de-escalation. But those safety measures must be kept separate from the protected employee’s ability to continue working on the same terms as before.

Measures that enhance safety are appropriate; measures that offload the “problem” onto the protected employee are not. Cutting hours, reassigning the employee to a worse role, increasing scrutiny after disclosure, or treating the employee as less dependable can create the very liability the employer is trying to avoid. Because protection-from-abuse orders often arise from complex and emotional circumstances, employers may consider designating specific managers or HR personnel for additional training and involvement to support the employee while preserving the terms and conditions of employment.

There may also be a leave-and-accommodation dimension. Maine already provides employment leave for victims of violence in defined circumstances, and Maine’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program—now paying benefits as of 2026—includes leave for victims of domestic or sexual violence among its qualifying reasons.

An employee navigating a protection order may be entitled to time off under Maine’s leave framework at the same time the new protected-class rule is in play. The smart response coordinates safety planning, leave, and any needed accommodation, rather than treating those obligations as competing concerns or viewing the employee’s circumstances as a workplace problem to be solved.

The Paperwork Discipline and Action Items

For most employers, compliance will be driven by documents, training, and process discipline—not major operational change:

• Revise employee handbooks. Update EEO policy statements and handbook nondiscrimination and anti-retaliation language to include the new category, and include this new category on all internal postings about discrimination.
• Review application materials. Assess and scrub applications and onboarding materials so nothing asks—directly or indirectly—about protection orders or the circumstances behind them.
• Train managers and HR. Make sure supervisors know how to respond when a protection order is disclosed: keep it confidential, do not treat it as a performance or reliability concern to be managed, and involve the right people for safety and leave coordination.
• Coordinate safety and leave. HR should take the lead on coordinating any safety and leave—including PFML safe leave—and any related accommodation as part of one cohesive response.
• Audit recent incidents. If a protection order surfaced in a recent hiring, scheduling, discipline, or separation decision, consider having counsel review how it was handled.

As Maine’s employment law landscape continues to evolve, whether through major shifts like PFML and more targeted changes to discrimination laws protecting victims of abuse, it pays to check in early and often. Employers should update internal documents, reinforce thorough documentation practices, and consult counsel when questions arise. The employers best positioned for compliance will be the ones that treat this statutory change as a prompt to get policies, records, and manager training in order.