STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss Docket No.: 11-CV-968 .'j - K·-r:- 1\ji_ L---'\ .Aj' ",.:...1, ·:oJ?_ / ..L- 'J ) LINWOOD HALL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DECISION AND ORDER ) (Motion for Summary Judgment) MID-STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS, et ) al., ) ) Defendants )
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants
Mid-State Machine Products and Precision Partners Holding Company (PPHC) in this action
through which Plaintiff Linwood Hall seeks to recover under the Maine Whistleblower
Protection Act (MWP A).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff worked for
Defendants from February 23, 1989 until April6, 2009. (Supporting Statement ofMaterial Facts
(S.S.M.F.) ~ 6; Opposing Statement of Material Facts (O.S.M.F.) ~ 6; Additional Statement of
Material Facts (A.S.M.F.) ~ 8.) In 2007, Mid-State promoted Plaintiff to the position of
Finishing Department Supervisor, and he served in that position for the remainder of his
employment. (S.S.M.F. ~ 6; O.S.M.F. ~ 8.)
In 2009, Plaintiff supervised approximately twenty people, including Randy McGahey,
Evans Lister, and Levi Mosher. (S.S.M.F. ~ 7; O.S.M.F. ~ 7.) Plaintiff's duties required him to ensure that the Finishing Department functioned properly, and also included the monitoring of
employee conduct and enforcing the company's anti-harassment policy. (S.S.M.F. ~ 8; O.S.M.F.
~ 8.) Plaintiffs responsibilities included: to address and stop inappropriate employee conduct, to
ensure that his subordinates treated each other with respect, and to report inappropriate
workplace misconduct-including harassment and other threatening behavior-to his supervisor
and other company officials. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 8-9; O.S.M.F. ~~ 8-9.) During the six months prior to
Plaintiffs termination, Plaintiff received two raises, one of which was merit-based. (A.S.M.F. ~
12; Reply Statement of Material Facts (R.S.M.F.) ~ 12.)
Since 2006, while on breaks at work, McGahey, Lister, and Mosher, along with other
men in the Finishing Department, would make jokes and tease each other around the workplace. 1
(S.S.M.F. ~ 11; O.S.M.F. ~ 12; A.S.M.F. ~ 20.) Some of these comments were sexual in nature;
Lister and Mosher reportedly told McGahey that he needed to perform certain sexual acts, that he
was a child molester, and that he was a homosexual. 2 (S.S.M.F. ~~ 12-13.)
Plaintiff was present when Lister and Mosher directed sexual comments to McGahey, but
believed that the conversations were consensual, and that nobody was being harassed. (S.S.M.F.
~~ 14, 16-17; O.S.M.F. ~~ 14, 16-17; A.S.M.F. ~~ 20-21, 25.) Plaintiff also concedes that Lister's
and Mosher's comments and conduct were lewd, dirty, vulgar, and disrespectful. (S.S.M.F. ~ 17;
O.S.M.F. ~ 17.)
Mid-State is a Maine-based company that manufactures precision machine and fabricated
metal parts. (S.S.M.F. ~ 1; O.S.M.F. ~ 1.) PPHC is a global manufacturing and engineering
1 This statement of material fact, like several to follow, was qualified by the Plaintiff in his Opposing Statement of Material Facts. (O.S.M.F. ~ 11.) Unless otherwise noted, the qualification serves merely to expand upon the original statement of material fact or the additional statement of material fact, and does not affect the underlying acknowledgment as to the basic truth of the statement. 2 Plaintiff qualifies by stating that while he does not disagree that such statements were made, he contends that he did not participate in any of these inappropriate conversations. (O.S.M.F. ~ 13.)
2 company that became Mid-State's parent corporation in 1998. the two companies maintain
separate organizations structures, though. (S.S.M.F. ~ 2; O.S.M.F. ~ 2.) Mid-State has an
Employee Handbook that prohibits harassment in any form, and PPHC's Code of Conduct
similarly includes anti-harassment and mistreatment of co-workers policies. (S.S.M.F. ~ 3;
O.S.M.F. ~ 3.)
Plaintiff received a copy of the anti-harassment and misconduct policy and also received
annual training on how to implement company policies. 3 (S.S.M.F. ~ 5; O.S.M.F. ~ 5.) Plaintiff
claims that on or about March 23, 2009, McGahey came to him and asked him to put a stop to
Lister and Mosher's teasing. (S.S.M.F. ~ 22; O.S.M.F. ~ 22; A.S.M.F. ~ 40.) It was then that
Plaintiff subsequently approached his supervisor, David Mills, to inform him that McGahey was
being teased. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 22-23; O.S.M.F. ~~ 22-23; A.S.M.F. ~ 33.) At that time, Plaintiff did
not disclose to Mills that the comments were sexual in nature, but Mills instructed Plaintiff to put
a stop to the teasing. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 24-25; O.S.M.F. ~~ 24-25; A.S.M.F. ~~ 43, 45.) Mills
instructed Plaintiff to tell McGahey, Lister, and Mosher not to have any non-work related
discussions with each other. (S.S.M.F. ~ 25; O.S.M.F. ~ 25; A.S.M.F. ~ 46.)
On March 26 or 27, 2009, 4 Jerry Fitzmorris, a welding supervisor and Plaintiffs peer,
overheard two employees discussing the sexual comments that Lister and Mosher had made to
McGahey. 5 (S.S.M.F. ~ 27; O.S.M.F. ~ 27.) Fitzmorris asked one of the employees', Russ
Simpson, what was going on in the Finishing Department; Simpson explained that Lister and
3 The parties dispute the origin of the notification regarding workplace sexual harassment; Defendants assert that there is no indication that such notice came from PPHC. (R.S.M.F. ~ 30.) 4 The parties do not necessarily agree on the date ofFitzmorris' report; although this is not a material fact in dispute, Defendants assert that Fitzmorris approached Plaintiff on March 27, 2009, not March 26, 2009. (A.S.M.F. ~ 55; R.S.M.F. ~55). Both proffered dates are supported by evidence in the record, but since the date on which Fitzmorris approached Plaintiff does not go to the underlying issue of whether Hall took appropriate action in a timely manner to address the alleged harassment, the apparent disagreement is not a dispute of a material fact. 5 The parties agree that Russ Simpson, one of the two employees having the discussion, reports to Fitzmorris. (S.S.M.F. ~ 27; O.S.M.F. ~ 27.)
3 Mosher had been making harassing and sexual comments to McGahey, which included
comments about McGahey's sexuality, McGahey performing sexual acts, and asserting that
McGahey was a child molester. (S.S.M.F. ~ 28; O.S.M.F. ~ 28.) Fitzmorris then approached
Plaintiff to advise him that Plaintiff had a problem in his department, and if Plaintiff did not
address the problem, Fitzmorris would go to Human Resources. (S.S.M.F. ~ 29; O.S.M.F. ~ 29;
A.S.M.F. ~,-r 55-57.) Fitzmorris drafted an anonymous note about the situation to Pete
McAllister, Mid-State's HR Manager, on or about March 28, 2009, and placed it under his door.
(S.S.M.F. ~ 30; O.S.M.F. ~ 30.) The note, however, did not reference any sexual comments that
were directed at McGahey; the letter simply informed McAllister that an employee in the
Finishing Department had been intimidated and harassed. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 30-31; O.S.M.F. ~ 30-
31.)
On or about Monday, March 30, 2009, Fitzmorris approached McAllister, identified
himself as the author of the note, and informed McAllister that the inappropriate conduct in the
Finishing Department had been addressed. (S.S.M.F. ~ 33; O.S.M.F. ~ 33; A.S.M.F. ~ 58.)
Fitzmorris did not, however, reveal to McAllister the sexual nature of the comments directed to
McGahey. (S.S.M.F. ~ 34; O.S.M.F. ~ 34.) On or around April 1, 2009, Fitzmorris spoke to
Plaintiff again, and derided Plaintiffs handling of the situation because it served to exclude
McGahey from the rest of the Finishing Department. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 35-36; O.S.M.F. ~~ 35-36;
A.S.M.F. ~59.) In response, Fitzmorris wrote McAllister a second note, stating McGahey was
being mistreated, and that Plaintiff may have been involved in the mistreatment. (S.S.M.F. ~ 37;
O.S.M.F. ~ 37.) This second note did not state that the comments were sexually explicit, and
McAllister remained unaware ofthe comments' sexual nature. (S.S.M.F. ~ 37; O.S.M.F. ~ 37.)
4 On or about April 3, 2009, Fitzmorris told McAllister that all the issues raised in his April
1 letter had been addressed, and that McAllister could stop worrying about it. (S.S.M.F. ~ 38;
O.S.M.F. ~ 38.) Later that same day, Jeff Farley, Mid-State's Manufacturing Manager,
approached McAllister and asked if he was aware that McGahey was being called a "child
molester" by his coworkers. (S.S.M.F. ~ 39; O.S.M.F. ~ 39.) Based on this discussion,
McAllister began investigating the issues involving McGahey and whether Plaintiff had properly
addressed them. (S.S.M.F. ~ 40; O.S.M.F. ~ 40.) The first step of this investigation included
talking with Fitzmorris to learn more about the sexual explicitness of the comments. Fitzmorris
told McAllister about the comments regarding McGahey performing sexual acts, the child
molester comments, and the comments about McGahey's sexual orientation. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 41-
42; O.S.M.F. ~~ 41-42.)
McAllister also spoke with McGahey who told McAllister about the comments, and that
they were upsetting and hurtful; McGahey told McAllister that Plaintiff would sometimes laugh
at the comments. (S.S.M.F. ~ 43.) Plaintiff denies that he ever laughed at the comments, and
stated that he never believed-until McGahey approached him on March 23, 2009-that
McGahey found the comments to be upsetting or hurtful. (O.S.M.F. ~ 43.) Mills joined
McGahey and McAllister towards the end of their meeting, and told McAllister that Plaintiff had
come to see him on March 30, 2009, but never mentioned anything about sexual comments.
Mills also told McAllister that he had instructed Plaintiffto put a stop to the teasing. (S.S.M.F. ~
45; O.S.M.F. ~ 45.)
Continuing through Monday, April 6, 2009, McAllister, in his capacity as Mid-State's
HR Manager, conducted interviews of Russ Simpson, Drew Bridger, Bud Bolduc, and Alan
5 Mathieu, all of whom allegedly observed the teasing of McGahey. 6 (S.S.M.F. ~~ 46, 48-50;
O.S.M.F. ~~ 46, 48-49; A.S.M.F. ~~ 64-65.) After concluding these interviews on April 6,
McAllister met with Alan Dorval, Mid-State's President and CEO, and Kevin Nelson, Mid-
State's Vice President of Operations, to discuss McAllister's findings. After considering the
information, Dorval decided to terminate Plaintiff's employment. 7 (S.S.M.F. ~51; O.S.M.F. ~
51; A.S.M.F. ~ 73.)
Dorval provided, by way of apparent justification for Mid-State's termination decision,
that Plaintiff was fired because he failed to address timely McGahey's mistreatment, because he
allegedly participated in abusive an sexually inappropriate teasing of McGahey, 8 and because he
had on this and a prior occasion used poor managerial judgment. 9 (S.S.M.F. ~ 53; O.S.M.F. ~
53.)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a former employee of Mid-State Machine Products, initially maintained that he
was fired because of his age, and filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA) and the MWPA. After Plaintiff filed suit in Superior Court (Kennebec County),
Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maine. On
September 11, 2012, the District Court (Woodcock, C. J.) granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to the ADEA claim, and remanded the MWP A claim to state court.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the MWP A claim.
6 Plaintiff asserts, through record citation, that only Simpson and Bridger mentioned hearing teasing of a sexual nature. (A.S.M.F. ~ 69 .) However, Defendants correctly point out that the Plaintiff also acknowledged overhearing the sexually explicit comments. (R.S.M.F. ~ 69.) 7 Defendants terminated Plaintiffs employment on Monday morning, April6, 2009. (A.S.M.F. ~ 73.) 8 Plaintiff denies that he condoned or participated in Lister and Mosher's mistreatment of McGahey. (O.S.M.F. ~ 53.) 9 Plaintiff, however, asserts that Defendants provided no specific reason or explanation for Plaintiffs termination, but Defendants claim that Plaintiff was aware that his discharge was because he failed to perform his duties as a supervisor. (A.S.M.F. ~ 74; R.S.M.F. ~ 74.)
6 STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when the court's review of the parties' statements of
material fact and cited record evidence indicates that there are no genuine issues of disputed
material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See M.R. Civ.
P. 56(c); see e.g, Dyer v. Dep't ofTransp., 2008 ME 106, ~ 14, 951 A.2d 821, 825; Darlings v.
Ford Motor Co., 2003 ME 21, ~ 14, 817 A.2d 877. A fact is material if it has the potential to
impact the outcome of the case. See Parrish v. Wright, 2003 ME 90, ~ 8, 828 A.2d 778 (citation
omitted). An issue of fact is genuine when "sufficient evidence requires a fact-finder to choose
between competing versions of the truth at trial." Id; see also MP Assocs. v. Liberty, 2001 ME
22, ~ 12, 771 A.2d 1040; Prescott v. State Tax Assessor, 1998 ME 250, ~ 5, 721 A.2d 169. An
opposing party can survive a motion for summary judgment by producing evidence that, if
produced at trial, would be enough to resist a motion for a judgment as a matter of law. See
Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 1997 ME 99, ~ 8, 694 A.2d 924; Lincoln Rental Sys. v. Lincoln Sanitary
Dist., 2006 WL 6334627 (Me. Super. Mar. 29, 2006).
On motion for summary judgment, the Court compares the parties' statements of material
fact as well as the corresponding record references. See Corey v. Norman, Hanson & DeTroy,
1999 ME 196, ~ 8, 742 A.2d 933; Lincoln Rental Sys., 2006 WL 6334627. At the summary
judgment stage, the Court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. See Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2010 ME 20, ~ 11, 989 A.2d 733, 738; Lightfoot v. Sch.
Admin. Dist. No. 35,2003 ME 24, ~ 6, 816 A.2d 63.
7 DISCUSSION
I. The MWPA
In relevant part, the MWP A provides:
No employer may discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location or privileges of employment because:
A. The employee, acting in good faith, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports orally or in writing to the employer or a public body what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of a law or rule adopted under the laws of this State, a political subdivision of this State or the United States;
26 M.R.S.A. § 833(1)(A). The MWPA prohibits an employer from firing an employee for
reporting "what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a condition or practice that
would put at risk the health or safety of that employee or any other individual." !d. at §
833(1)(B); see also LePage v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 2006 ME 130, ~ 19, 909 A.2d 629
("prohibit[ing] an employer from taking adverse action against an employee who reports a
suspected violation of a law or rule."). While the MWP A "does not itself provide a judicial
remedy," the Maine Human Rights Act "provides a direct cause of action for employees alleging
discrimination based on WPA-protected whistleblowing activity." Fuhrmann v. Staples Office
Superstore E., Inc., 2012 ME 135, ~ 14, 58 A.3d 1083.
In order to establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show: "( 1) that he was engaged in
a protected activity; (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that a causal
nexus exists between the activity and the adverse action." LePage, 2006 ME 130, ~ 19, 909 A.2d
629; see also DiCentes v. Michaud, 1998 ME 227, ~ 14, 719 A.2d 509 (highlighting the "causal
link" requirement). Maine's courts apply a burden shifting analysis derived from McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), which provides:
8 once the plaintiff has shown a protected activity followed in close proximity by an adverse employment action, [this] gives rise to an inference that a causal connection is established; the employer, then, will be required to produce some probative evidence to demonstrate a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
LePage, 2006 ME 130, ~ 19, 909 A.2d 629 (internal quotation marks omitted). Next, "[a)fter the
defendant has articulated a nondiscriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to
demonstrate that the nondiscriminatory reason is pretextual or irrelevant and that the unlawful
discrimination brought about the adverse employment action." Doyle v. Dep 't of Human Servs.,
2003 ME 61, ~ 15, 824 A.2d 48.
In the September 11, 2012 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, the United States
District Court (Woodcock, C.J.) identified several issues generated by Hall's MWPA state law
claim. See Hall v. Mid-State Mach. Prods. Co., 895 F. Supp. 2d 243, 277 (D. Me. 2012). In
particular, the District Court explained that the relevant questions are: "whether Mr. Hall
engaged in protected activity, whether his report of the sexual harassment of Mr. McGahey was
in conformity with his job duties, whether he was complicit in the misconduct, and whether his
complicity, if proven, bars his MWP A claim." I d. Plaintiff contends that his report of the
allegations of sexual harassment constitutes protected activity, and that the MWP A protects
Plaintiff regardless of his job responsibilities.
A. Report of Conduct of Other Employee as Protected Activity
Under the MWP A,
an employee has engaged in protected activity if she has report[ed) orally or in writing to the employer or a public body what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of a law or rule adopted under the laws of this State, a political subdivision of this State or the United States.
Bodman v. Maine, Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 720 F. Supp. 2d 115, 124-25 (D. Me.
2010) (citing 26 M.R.S.A. § 833(1)(A)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The District of
9 Maine has further defined protected activity as encompassing conduct wherein an employee, in
good faith, makes a report that he or she had reasonable cause to believe that a condition or
practice of the employer would put the health and safety ofthat employee or any other individual
at risk. See Gammon v. Crisis and Counseling Ctrs., 762 F. Supp. 2d 165, 182-83 (D. Me. 2011).
The good faith analysis begins with an assessment "of whether the purported whistleblower
made h[is] complaints for the purpose of exposing illegal or unsafe practices." !d. at 183. The
Law Court has additionally held that "the protection afforded by the MWP A is 'unambiguously
limit[ed] ... to (1) employees (2) who report to an employer (3) about a violation (4) committed
or practiced by that employer."' Bodman, 720 F. Supp. 2d at 125 (citing Costain v. Sunbury
Primary Care, P.A., 2008 ME 142, ~ 8, 954 A.2d 1051) (emphasis in original).
A preliminary issue is thus whether Plaintiffs complaint about the conduct of other
employees constitutes a protected activity. Bodman is instructive on this issue. The plaintiff in
Bodman complained to her supervisor that a co-worker breached her expectation of
confidentiality by forwarding to a man named Damon, her abusive ex-boyfriend, a private email
she wrote asking that Damon be excluded from the company softball team. See id. at 125. As
characterized by the court, Bodman claimed that the defendant-employer violated the MWP A
"when, in response to her reports of unlawful conduct and harassment to her supervisors, it
imposed more burdens on [her], including harsh treatment, unlawful discrimination[,] shame,
additional harassment, exposure to further violent acts, and derogatory conditions." Bodman,
720 F. Supp. 2d at 124.
While the court initially observed that the conduct about which Bodman complained was
typically not a basis for a claim under the MWP A because the plaintiff reported the harassment
10 of an individual who was not an employee, the court acknowledged two exceptions whereby the
plaintiff potentially engaged in protected activity:
(1) she complained to her "supervisor and other staff'' when a co-worker forwarded to Damon her email requesting that Damon be excluded from participation on the agency softball team because of his harassment; and (2) she filed a Union grievance, the contents of which the [c]ourt assumes were related to both the softball incident and the harassment in her work environment, to which her employer did not respond.
Id. at 125. Ultimately, as pertains to her MWP A claim and the question of whether her conduct
constituted protected activity, the court determined that the plaintiff "complained about conduct
by another employee, which she considered to be a breach of confidentiality, to an individual
who could address the violation; this satisfies the protected activity element of the MWP A prima
facie case." Id. Under the analysis and reasoning of Bodman, the fact that Plaintiffs alleged
protected activity was the report of the conduct of two employees, Lister and Mosher, would not,
as Defendants contend, preclude Plaintiffs recovery.
B. Whether Hall Was a Whistleblower and the "Manager Rule"
Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not actually "blow the whistle" because he was
McGahey's supervisor, learned about the "harassment" of McGahey in his capacity as a
supervisor, and Plaintiff was responsible for terminating and reporting such behavior. In support
of this argument, Defendants cite Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2009 WL 2151706 (D.R.I.
July 16, 2009). In Malone, the plaintiff (Malone) was a Field Engineering Manager who
reported to his direct supervisor and superior about a complaint he received from a subordinate
of alleged harassment. See id. at *3. The subordinate also reported that a co-worker had been
accepting gifts of tools from a government employee. See id. Malone was initially unaware of
this, but after the employer's HR manager conducted an investigation, the employer concluded
that the acceptance of tools by members of Malone's team was improper. See id. Malone was
11 issued a disciplinary warning letter addressing "Negligent Supervisory Responsibilities," and
was told that his "lack of effective and/or active management practices ... " and "actions as a
supervisor were unacceptable and negatively impacted the overall performance of [his] work
group." Id. at 4 (internal quotation marks omitted). Malone filed a claim under the Rhode Island
Whistleblowers' Protection Act ("RIWPA") 10 claiming that he had reported the tool and
harassment incidents to his supervisor, but no action was taken. See id. at *5.
The RIWP A requires the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) he reported, verbally or in writing to Lockheed Martin or to his supervisor a violation of a federal, state, or local law or regulation which Malone knew or reasonably believed had occurred or was about to occur; (2) he was discharged, threatened or otherwise discriminated against by Lockheed Martin; and (3) there was a causal connection between the report and the discharge, threat or discrimination.
Id. at *13. Applying this standard of review, the court in Malone ultimately held that "Malone's
report to his supervisor is not the type of conduct the whistleblower statute seeks to protect." Id.
The concept of a "manager rule" has also been considered and applied in Maine. In
Capalbo v. Kris-Way Trust Leasing, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 397, 419 (D. Me. 2011), after
observing that it was aware of "no case considering whether the making of a required report
constitutes a protected activity for purposes of the MWP A," the court wrote, "a protected activity
'is broadly defined as conduct by the plaintiff that is in opposition to an unlawful employment
10 The Defendants state, and the Plaintiff does not contradict, that the RIWPA is similar to the MWPA, and provides: An employer shall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, location, or privileges of employment ... (4) because the employee reports verbally or in writing to the employer or to the employee's supervisor a violation, which the employee knows or reasonably believes has occurred or is about to occur, of a law or regulation or rule promulgated under the laws of this state, a political subdivision of this state, or the United States, unless the employee knows or has reason to know that the report is false .... R.I. GEN. LAWS§ 28-50-3(4) (2002).
12 practice ofthe defendant."' ld. (citing Osherv. Univ. ofMe. Sys., 703 F. Supp. 2d 51,66 (D.
Me. 201 0) ). In granting summary judgment, the court concluded, that "[n ]o reasonable trier of
fact could conclude that the reports described by Capalbo, which Kris-Way required of him,
constituted conduct in opposition to an unlawful employment practice of Kris-Way." Capalbo,
821 F. Supp. 2d at 419.
Similarly, in Huffman v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 263 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the
court wrote that an employee who has, "as part of his normal duties, been assigned the task of
investigating and reporting wrongdoing ... and, in fact, reports that wrongdoing through normal
channels[]" is not engaged in activity protected by the WPA. Huffman, 263 F.3d at 1352. The
court further observed that "a disclosure cannot be protected by the WP A if an employee is
merely performing his required duties." 263 F.3d at 1346.
In an attempt to distinguish his case, Plaintiff contends that the "manager rule" should not
apply to him or other similarly situated managers whose primary responsibility is to manage a
particular department- the Finishing Department in Plaintiffs case. That is, Plaintiff maintains
that the rule should only apply to those who are primarily responsible for reporting misconduct
such as the alleged harassment in this case. Because most managers or supervisors have multiple
responsibilities, the distinction urged by Plaintiff would eviscerate the rule. Here, Plaintiff
concedes that as a supervisor, he was required to promote a respectful workplace, to take action
when misconduct, harassment, or other inappropriate conduct occurs in the workplace, and to
report inappropriate workplace misconduct, including harassment and ot.her threatening behavior
to his supervisor and other company officials. (S.S.M.F. ~~ 8, 9; O.S.M.F. ~~ 8, 9). Plaintiff
cannot recover under MWP A for making a report that was within his normal job duties.
13 CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that there are no issues of material
fact in dispute. 11 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and
enters judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs MWP A claim.
Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into
the docket by reference.
11 Because the Court has determined that Plaintiff's report to his supervisor is not a protected activity because the report was within Plaintiff's normal job duties, the Court does not address Defendants' remaining arguments in support of their request for summary judgment.
14 LINWOOD HALL - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT 3635 MIDDLE ROAD KENNEBEC, ss. SIDNEY ME 04330 Docket No AUGSC-CV-2011-00068 Attorney for: LINWOOD HALL PHILIP P MANCINI - RETAINED DRUMMOND & DRUMMOND DOCKET RECORD ONE MONUMENT WAY PORTLAND ME 04101
Attorney for: LINWOOD HALL ALEXANDER WILSON SAKSEN - REMOVAL BENDETT & MCHUGH 30 DANFORTH ST SUITE 104 PORTLAND ME 04103
Attorney for: LINWOOD HALL ANDREW PAUL PIERCE - RETAINED DRUMMOND & DRUMMOND ONE MONUMENT WAY PORTLAND ME 04101
VS MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS - DEFENDANT 8 3 VENTI DRIVE WINSLOW ME 04901 Attorney for: MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS RICHARD MOON - RETAINED VERRILL DANA LLP ONE PORTLAND SQUARE PO BOX 586 PORTLAND ME 04112-0586
Attorney for: MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS TAWNY LYNN ALVAREZ - RETAINED VERRILL DANA LLP ONE PORTLAND SQUARE PO BOX 586 PORTLAND ME 04112-0586
PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY - DEFENDANT 300 OAKTON STREET SKOKIE IL 60076 Attorney for: PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY RICHARD MOON - RETAINED VERRILL DANA LLP ONE PORTLAND SQUARE PO BOX 586 PORTLAND ME 04112-0586
Page 1 of 6 Printed on: 09/06/2013 AUGSC-CV-2011-00068 DOCKET RECORD Attorney for: PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY TAWNY LYNN ALVAREZ - RETAINED VERRILL DANA LLP ONE PORTLAND SQUARE PO BOX 586 PORTLAND ME 04112-0586
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: OTHER STATUTORY ACTIONS Filing Date: 03/28/2011
Docket Events: 03/28/2011 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 03/28/2011
03/28/2011 Party(s): LINWOOD HALL ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 03/28/2011 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALEXANDER WILSON SAKSEN
04/07/2011 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 03/29/2011 ORIGINAL SUMMONS WITH RETURN SERVICE MADE UPON ROBERT DAVEAU ON BEHALF OF MID-STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS
04/26/2011 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - NOTICE OF REMOVAL FILED ON 04/25/2011 Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON
04/26/2011 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY FINDING - REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT ENTERED ON 04/25/2011 Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON
09/26/2012 NOTE - OTHER CASE NOTE ENTERED ON 09/12/2012 US DISTRICT COURT GRANTED DEFTS' MOTION FOR SJ AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE KENNEBC COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. FEDERAL DOCKET SHEET AND ORDER IN FILE. FEDERAL FILING DOCUMENTS IN VAULT.
10/10/2012 DISCOVERY FILING - DISCOVERY DEADLINE ENTERED ON 06/01/2013
ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 10/10/2012 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE
10/10/2012 ORDER - SCHEDULING ORDER ENTERED ON 10/10/2012 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
10/10/2012 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 10/10/2012 Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON
10/10/2012 Party(s): PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 10/10/2012 Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON Page 2 of 6 Printed on: 09/06/2013 AUGSC-CV-2011-00068 DOCKET RECORD
12/20/2012 ADR - NOTICE OF ADR PROCESS/NEUTRAL FILED ON 12/20/2012 MEDIATION WAS HELD ON 12/14/12 BEFORE J. PIERSON AND WAS NOT RESOLVED.
02/05/2013 ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 02/05/2013 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE
02/05/2013 Party(s) : LINWOOD HALL ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/20/2012 Plaintiff's Attorney: PHILIP P MANCINI
02/06/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS MOTION - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED ON 02/04/2013 Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW, STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS WITH ATTACHED EXHIBITS
02/12/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY LETTER - FROM PARTY FILED ON 02/11/2013 Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON DOCUMENT SENT TO OPPOSING COUNSEL
02/22/2013 Party(s): LINWOOD HALL OTHER FILING - OPPOSING MEMORANDUM FILED ON 02/22/2013 Plaintiff's Attorney: PHILIP P MANCINI TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS, AFFIDAVIT OF PETER MCALLISTER, AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL MCGAHEY
02/22/2013 OTHER FILING - TRANSCRIPT FILED ON 02/22/2013 DEPOSITION OF LINWOOD HALL, MID-STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS, EVANS J. LISTER, PETER MCALLISTER WITH ATTACHED EXHIBITS
03/04/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 03/04/2013 Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON TO REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH PROPOSED ORDER
03/07/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 03/07/2013 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE THEIR REPLY MEMORANDUM TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OPPOSING STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND ADDITIONAL FACTS IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 14,2013 COPIES TO ATTYS. OF RECORD.
03/20/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 03/14/2013 Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON DEFTS' REPLY TO PLTF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SJ. DEFTS' RESPONSE TO PLTF'S ADDITIONAL FACTS
03/28/2013 Party(s) : LINWOOD HALL ATTORNEY - REMOVAL ORDERED ON 03/28/2013 Plaintiff's Attorney: ALEXANDER WILSON SAKSEN Page 3 of 6 Printed on: 09/06/2013 AUGSC-CV-2011-00068 DOCKET RECORD
03/28/2013 Party(s): LINWOOD HALL ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 03/28/2013 Plaintiff's Attorney: ANDREW PAUL PIERCE
05/07/2013 Party(s): LINWOOD HALL JURY FILING - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL FILED ON 05/07/2013 Plaintiff's Attorney: PHILIPP MANCINI
05/07/2013 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULED FOR 06/10/2013 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 1 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE
05/07/2013 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE SENT ON 05/07/2013
05/22/2013 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT HELD ON 05/15/2013 TO BE RESCHEDULED
06/04/2013 HEARING -'MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULED FOR 06/20/2013 at 09:00 a.m. in Room No. 1 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE
06/04/2013 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE SENT ON 06/04/2013
06/25/2013 Party(s): LINWOOD HALL OTHER FILING - WITNESS & EXHIBIT LIST FILED ON 06/25/2013 Plaintiff's Attorney: PHILIPP MANCINI
06/25/2013 OTHER FILING - STATEMENT OF TIME FOR TRIAL FILED ON 06/25/2013
07/02/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY OTHER FILING - ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FILED ON 06/27/~013 Defendant's Attorney: TAWNY LYNN ALVAREZ
07/02/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 06/27/2013 Defendant's Attorney: TAWNY LYNN ALVAREZ
07/02/2013 Party(s): PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 06/27/2013 Defendant's Attorney: TAWNY LYNN ALVAREZ
07/02/2013 HEARING - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT HELD ON 06/20/2013 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON Plaintiff's Attorney: PHILIP P MANCINI TAPE 1696, INDEX 1696-2761 UNDER ADVISEMENT
07/02/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY MOTION - MOTION ALTER/AMEND ORDER/JUDG FILED ON 06/27/2013 Defendant's Attorney: TAWNY LYNN ALVAREZ CONSENT MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC
07/17/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY Page 4 of 6 Printed on: 09/06/2013 AUGSC-CV-2011-00068 DOCKET RECORD
MOTION - MOTION ALTER/AMEND ORDER/JUDG GRANTED ON 07/16/2013 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS AND ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL DUE 14 DAYS AFTER COURT RULES ON PENDING MOTION SJ.
07/25/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED ON 07/25/2013 Defendant's Attorney: RICHARD MOON CONSENTED TO MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
08/02/2013 TRIAL - TRAILING LIST SCHEDULED FOR 07/2t/2013 9/3 TO 10/4
08/02/2013 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 09/04/2013 at 08:45 a.m. in Room No. 1 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
08/07/2013 TRIAL - TRAILING LIST NOT HELD ON 08/07/2013
08/07/2013 TRIAL - TRAILING LIST CONTINUED ON 08/07/2013
08/07/2013 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOT HELD ON 08/07/2013
08/07/2013 HEARING - TRIAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CONTINUED ON 08/07/2013
08/07/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS,PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 08/07/2013 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL CONTINUED TO NEXT TRIAL DATE
09/06/2013 Party(s): MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS MOTION - MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED ON 09/04/2013 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
09/06/2013 FINDING - JUDGMENT DETERMINATION ENTERED ON 09/04/2013 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL COPIES TO REPOSITORIES
ORDER - SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED ON 09/04/2013 JOHN NIVISON , JUSTICE ORDERED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE COURT. COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL COPIES TO REPOSITORIES Judgment entered for MID STATE MACHINE PRODUCTS, PRESISION PARTNERS HOLDING COMPANY and against LINWOOD HALL.
09/06/2013 FINDING - FINAL JUDGMENT CASE CLOSED ON 09/06/2013
Page 5 of 6 Printed on: 09/06/2013 AUGSC-CV-2011-00068 DOCKET RECORD
A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Clerk
Page 6 of 6 Printed on: 09/06/2013