Goff v. Olympia Sports
This text of Goff v. Olympia Sports (Goff v. Olympia Sports) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
£ NTERE D OCT o B 1014
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-14-19 AND-MGrl~- IV-Ob-14- MAUREEN GOFF, RECEIVED & FILED Plaintiff t' ,.,~ L' : ,,' ;,..,_- ,J ; ' ~j
ORDER ON MOTION TO ANDROSCOGGIN DISMISS SUPERIOR COURT v.
OLYMPIA SPORTS,
Defendant
Defendant Olympia Sports has moved to dismiss Plaintiff Maureen Goffs Complaint for
improper venue and to dismiss Count III of the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to Maine Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and (6). This court
held a non-testimonial hearing on the Defendant's Motion. The Plaintiff has opposed the
Defendant's Motion.
The Plaintiffs Complaint contains three counts: Count I is for Maine Human Rights Act
age discrimination; Count II is for Maine Human Rights Act retaliation; and Count III is a
whistle blower claim. The Plaintiff is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
monetary damages. Her claims are based upon alleged violations of the Maine Human Rights
Act ("MHRA"), 5 M.R.S.A. § 4551 et seq., and the Whistleblowers' Protection Act ("WPA"), 26
M.R.S.A. § 831 et seq.
I. Factual and procedural background
Ms. Goff is a resident of New Gloucester, Maine. (Compl. ~ 1.) New Gloucester is in
Cumberland County. Olympia Sports is a Maine corporation. (Compl. ~ 2.) According to the she wished to continue working and retirement was not economically feasible for her. (Compl. ~
19.) Mr. Coffey again stated that she could work until October, and Ms. Goff informed him that
what the company was doing was not legal. (Compl. ~ 19.) Later that afternoon, around 4:30
p.m., Mr. Coffey asked if she was prepared to talk. (Compl ~ 20.) She responded that she needed
to talk to her husband at home, rather than over the phone. (Compl. ~ 20.) Mr. Coffey was "upset
and stomped away." (Compl. ~ 20.)
The next day, March 23, 2011, Ms. Goff was fired, and she was told that she had two
days to make a determination regarding a severance package. (Compl. ~ 21.) Plaintiff claims that
changing her separation date from the company was retaliatory and pretextual. (Compl ~ 24.)
On December 8, 2011, Ms. Goff filed a discrimination complaint with the Maine Human
Rights Commission ("MHRC"). (Compl. ~ 7.) Olympia Sports' President stated in a hearing with
the MHRC investigator that March 23rd was Ms. Gaffs last day, because Ms. Goff had stated
that what the company was doing was illegal. (Compl. ~ 27.)
On December 27, 2013, the MHRC issued a letter permitting Goff to pursue her action in
court. (Compl. ~ 8.)
II. Standard of review
When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) the Law Court has held that:
' [w]e view the material allegation of the complaint as admitted and examine the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory. A dismissal is appropriate only when it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support' of his claim. The legal sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law.'
Thompson v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 2002 ME 78, ~ 4, 796 A.2d 674 (quoting New
Orleans Tanker Corp. v. Dep't ofTransp., 1999 ME 67, ~ 3, 728 A.2d 673).
3 where the cause of action developed. The Defendant is correct that those would be the three 1 options if the Defendant were a person. Defendant, however, is a corporation.
Section 505 of the statute, which pertains to local and transitory actions where counties,
towns and other corporations are parties provides that "[a]ll other corporations may sue and be
sued in the county in which they have an established place of business or in which the plaintiff or
defendant, if a natural person, lives." 14 M.R.S. § 505. The court is unclear why Olympia Sports
believes that section 505 does not apply to it, when the title of the section refers specifically to
corporations.
"Where a corporation is a party, the action may be brought wherever the corporation has
an established place of business or where the other party, if a natural person, lives." 2 Harvey,
Maine Civil Practice, 66 (3d ed. 2011). Since Olympia Sports has a place of business in Auburn,
it is entirely appropriate for the Plaintiff to bring her action in Androscoggin County.
Pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 508, the court has the power to transfer this case to another
county, "in the interest[] of justice and to secure the speedy trial of an action, or for other good
cause .... " 14 M.R.S. § 508. The court is, however, un-persuaded by aforum non-conveniens
argument. Androscoggin County is adjacent to Cumberland County. There is no real hardship
involved in traveling to Auburn for trial.
Whistleblower claim
Defendant argues that Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed, because the
Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's complaint with the MHRC failed to include a claim for
violation of the WP A and Plaintiff therefore failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
Defendant also argues, based on its assertion that the WP A claim was not filed with the MHRC, 1 The Defendant's Motion goes into some detail discussing Ferraiolo Canst., Inc. v. Keybank, 978 F. Supp. 23 (D.
5 803(8)(B), and the Law Court's pronouncement in Tiemann, the court agrees with the Plaintiff
that the Investigator's Report is inadmissible hearsay, which cannot be considered by the court.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff stated that she timely filed a claim with the MHRC. Plaintiff
has also alleged in her Complaint, that she exhausted her administrative remedies. For the
purposes of this Motion, those allegations are taken as admitted. See Thompson, 2002 ME 78, ~
4, 796 A.2d 674. It is clear from Defendant's Motion that whether or not Plaintiff properly
articulated a WP A claim with the MHRC and whether she exhausted her administrative remedies
will need to be addressed in this action. At this early stage of the litigation, however, and with
the scant information that has been provided, the court cannot grant Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.
Accordingly, the court orders that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to
Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).
Dated w~
7 MAUREEN GOFF - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. Attorney for: MAUREEN GOFF Docket No AUBSC-CV-2014-00019 REBECCA S WEBBER - RETAINED SY ~oN TAINTOR & ABBOTT 9c ,IN STREET DOCKET RECORD AUBURN ME 04210
vs OLYMPIA SPORTS - DEFENDANT
Attorney for: OLYMPIA SPORTS PHILIP P MANCINI - RETAINED 02/25/2014 DRUMMOND & DRUMMOND ONE MONUMENT WAY PORTLAND ME 04101
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: OTHER STATUTORY ACTIONS Filing Date: 01/30/2014
Docket Events: 01/30/2014 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 01/30/2014
01/30/2014 Party(s): MAUREEN GOFF ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 01/30/2014 Plaintiff's Attorney: REBECCA S WEBBER
02/11/2014 Party(s): OLYMPIA SPORTS SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 02/06/2014 HORACE HORTON OBO OLYMPIA SPORTS
02/11/2014 Party ( s) : OLYMPIA SPORTS SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 02/11/2014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Goff v. Olympia Sports, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goff-v-olympia-sports-mesuperct-2014.