332 F. Supp. 3d 316
D. Me.2018Background
- Diane Charette was hired as District Coordinator for the St. John Valley Soil and Water Conservation District in August 2014; David Potter was Board Chair and her immediate supervisor.
- From early in her tenure, Charette complained that Potter treated her more harshly than male counterparts and made a sexually suggestive remark ("dance naked") and other aggressive comments; she reported these concerns to other supervisors and ultimately through counsel at a January 14, 2015 board meeting.
- After the January meeting the Board retained outside counsel to investigate; the investigator found Potter’s interactions were sometimes overbearing but made no finding of unlawful conduct; Potter was not disciplined but recused from decisions about Charette.
- Charette developed situational anxiety, took medical leave in January 2015, sought a reasonable accommodation (no contact with Potter), rejected the Board’s proposed trial return-to-work arrangements, and resigned in December 2015.
- Charette sued under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection and First Amendment claims) alleging sex discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and First Amendment retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination (adverse action) under MHRA | Potter and Board took adverse actions (e.g., denied signing authority, policy changes, refusal to sign paperwork, threats) amounting to sex discrimination | Actions were minor, administrative, or non-material; not adverse employment actions | Grant summary judgment to District on discrimination claims: cited actions not materially adverse |
| Hostile work environment (MHRA) | Charette argues Potter's comments, continual belittling, threats, and increased scrutiny created sex-based hostile environment | Defendants argue isolated incidents and ordinary workplace friction, not severe/pervasive conduct | Denied summary judgment on hostile work environment; triable issues remain for jury |
| Constructive discharge | Charette contends she was forced to resign due to intolerable harassment and ineffective remedies | Defendants point to prompt investigation, Potter’s recusal, and trial accommodations offered | Grant summary judgment for District on constructive discharge: employer took reasonable remedial steps; no compulsion to resign shown |
| Retaliation (MHRA and WPA) for complaining about harassment and surplus program | Charette says she engaged in protected activity and Board actions (probation reminders, policy changes, increased scrutiny) were retaliatory | Defendants contend either no protected activity or no causal link; surplus-program complaints unrelated | Denied summary judgment as to retaliation for sex-harassment complaints (triable); granted as to retaliation based on surplus-program comments |
| Failure to accommodate and interactive-process (Rehab Act & MHRA) | Charette sought accommodation (no contact with Potter; maintain 32-hr sole coordinator role) | District says attending Board meetings/communicating with Board are essential functions and requested accommodation was unreasonable/unduly burdensome | Grant summary judgment for District: requested accommodation not facially reasonable and undue hardship; interactive-process claim fails |
| § 1983 Equal Protection | Charette argues Potter (individually) treated her worse than similarly situated men (Tardif) | Defendants argue lack of disparate treatment evidence against Theriault and Coulombe; no § 1983 parallel to Title VII | Denied summary judgment as to Potter (triable disparate-treatment evidence); granted as to Theriault and Coulombe |
| § 1983 First Amendment retaliation | Charette claims protected speech on matters of public concern (surplus-program and harassment reports) | Defendants argue speech was pursuant to official duties (no citizen speech) and, in any event, right not clearly established for personal-harassment complaints | Grant summary judgment to individual defendants on First Amendment claims based on qualified immunity and on-the-job speech doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for genuine dispute)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant's initial burden on summary judgment)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (definition of adverse action in retaliation context)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (hostile work environment standards)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public employee speech pursuant to official duties not protected)
- Lee-Crespo v. Schering-Plough Del Caribe Inc., 354 F.3d 34 (constructive discharge requires intolerable conditions)
- Reed v. LePage Bakeries, 244 F.3d 254 (burdens in reasonable-accommodation analysis)