CAREY v. SUNDAY RIVER SKIWAY et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
SETH CAREY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUNDAY RIVER SKIWAY et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:25-cv-00384-SDN
ORDER
In this matter, Plaintiff Seth Carey brings a variety of claims under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act (“CRA)”, and state tort law against his former employer, Sunday River
Skiway, and its head of security, Darren Tripp (collectively, the “Defendants”). Mr. Carey’s
claims arise from alleged disability discrimination and adverse employment actions taken
by Defendants based on his ADHD.1 On November 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge
recommended the Court dismiss Mr. Carey’s complaint for failure to state a claim for all
counts alleged. ECF No. 5. Mr. Carey subsequently objected to the Recommended
Decision. ECF No. 6. I have reviewed and conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate
Judge’s 	Recommended 	Decision. 	For 	the 	following 	reasons, 	I 	AFFIRM 	the
Recommended Decision and DISMISS the Complaint.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Carey seeks both injunctive and monetary relief based on Defendants “taking
adverse employment actions against him ultimately resulting in the wrongful termination
1 In his attached Memorandum of Law, Mr. Carey further alleges that Defendants discriminated against him
and refused to rehire him on the basis of his criminal history. See ECF No. 1 at 19–23.
Case 2:25-cv-00384-SDN Document 7 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
of his employment.” ECF No. 1 at 1, 23–24. In his Complaint, Mr. Carey alleges numerous
facts regarding his ADHD diagnosis, his long employment history at Sunday River
Skiway, 	and 	Defendants’ 	refusal 	to 	rehire 	him 	after 	his 	previous 	guilty 	plea 	to
misdemeanor charges and other pending felony charges in 2022. See id. at 3–4, 23.
In her Recommended Decision, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Mr.
Carey’s complaint on multiple grounds. First, Mr. Carey has failed to state a plausible
claim under the Twombly/Iqbal standard for claims brought under the ADA and MHRA.
ECF No. 5 at 1–2. Second, Mr. Carey has failed to state a claim under Title VII of the CRA,
which does not include criminal history (or disability status) as a protected class. Id. at 2.
Third, Mr. Carey’s tort claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) fail because “he has not alleged facts
showing that Sunday River engaged in extreme or outrageous conduct or that it owed him
a duty of care.” Id. Finally, Mr. Carey has also failed to state a claim under the Maine state
law “An Act Relating to Fair Chance in Employment” because the law does not forbid an
employer from considering an applicant’s criminal history. Id. at 3.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Carey’s objection to the Recommended Decision does not state specific
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s legal reasoning or conclusions, aside from a general
objection that “it appears that the magistrate failed to read or consider the Plaintiff’s Facts
or Memorandum of Law,” which “addresses and overcomes the magistrate’s contention”
that he has failed to state any viable claim for relief. ECF No. 6 at 1–2. Mr. Carey bases
this objection on “the fact that the magistrate only referred to Complaint counts and
nothing else.” Id. at 1. The remainder of Mr. Carey’s objection consists of additional
factual 	allegations 	regarding 	the 	conduct 	of 	Mr. 	Tripp, 	Sunday 	River 	Skiway’s
Case 2:25-cv-00384-SDN Document 7 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
employment policies, and speculation regarding its decision not to rehire Mr. Carey. See
id. at 2–8. As an initial matter, I find the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision is
well-reasoned and supported by the entire record, including Mr. Carey’s supporting
Memorandum.
Upon my de novo review, I affirm the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Mr. Carey
has failed to allege adequate facts to support a claim for relief under either the ADA or
MHRA. Even when considering this Court’s duty to liberally construe Mr. Carey’s
pleadings as a pro se plaintiff, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), I find he
has failed to state sufficient “non-conclusory, non-speculative factual allegations” to
“plausibly narrate a claim for relief.” Humana Inc. v. Biogen, Inc., 126 F.4th 94, 103 (1st
Cir. 2025) (quoting Cheng v. Neumann, 51 F.4th 438, 443 (1st Cir. 2022)). For similar
reasons, I agree with the Magistrate Judge that Mr. Carey’s claims for Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
(NIED) each fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Mr. Carey has provided
no authority to support the proposition that Defendants’ conduct in refusing to rehire him
amounts to conduct “so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all possible bounds of
decency” nor that he suffered emotional distress “so severe that no reasonable person
could be expected to endure it.” Lougee Conservancy v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 48 A.3d 774,
784 (Me. 2012) (quoting Lyman v. Huber, 10 A.3d 707, 711 (Me. 2010)).2
I likewise concur with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Mr. Carey has failed
to state a claim for relief under Title VII of the CRA, which does not include either
disability status or criminal history as a protected class for employment discrimination
2 When sitting in diversity, federal courts apply the substantive law of the forum state. Estrella v. PNF
Realty, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00250, 2026 WL 472959, at *6 n.4 (D. Me. Feb. 26, 2026).
Case 2:25-cv-00384-SDN Document 7 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
purposes. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)) (“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for
an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual . . . because of such
individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”); see also Reynoso v. Dejoy, 757
F. Supp. 3d 190, 193–94 (D.P.R. 2024) (dismissing Title VII employment discrimination
claim where plaintiff failed to allege membership in protected class). Finally, I affirm the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion dismissing Mr. Carey’s claim under 26 M.R.S.A. § 600-A
(“An Act Relating to Fair Chance in Employment”) and reject Mr. Carey’s argument that
the state law contemplates a complete prohibition on employers from considering a job
applicant’s criminal history. See 26 M.R.S.A. § 600-A
CONCLUSION
Following my de novo review, for the foregoing reasons and for those already
explained in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, Mr. Carey’s objection, ECF
No. 6, is OVERRULED. The Recommended Decision, ECF No. 5, is ADOPTED and
AFFIRMED in its entirety. Accordingly, Mr. Carey’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is
DISMISSED.
S O ORDERED .
Dated this 10th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Stacey D. Neumann
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT J UDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00384-SDN Document 7 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>