222 A.3d 624
Me.2019Background
- Darren Johnson was hired in 2011 as a part-time MRI technician; a 2013 CAT‑tech opening was filled by a less‑experienced person (Johnson did not apply).
- In 2013 a co‑worker (then a patient) complained about Johnson; HR thereafter took precautionary steps (e.g., closer parking for the co‑worker).
- In Feb. 2014 Johnson’s supervisor told him he reminded her of her ex‑husband; months later a nurse was overheard saying she wanted to “smack” him.
- Johnson complained to HR in May 2014; HR investigated, concluded Johnson had an ongoing pattern of inappropriate behavior, and the Leader of Staff Experiences recommended termination for safety concerns.
- Johnson was terminated July 5, 2014; the Maine Human Rights Commission found no reasonable grounds, and Johnson sued in Superior Court alleging sexual‑harassment hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and whistleblower retaliation.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for York Hospital; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the supervisor’s “ex‑husband” remark and a nurse’s “smack” comment created an actionable hostile work environment based on sexual harassment | Johnson: the two incidents, viewed together, were sufficiently severe/pervasive to create a hostile, sex‑based work environment | Hospital: isolated, non‑gendered remarks do not meet the severe or pervasive standard; one comment was unrelated to sex | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — incidents were isolated and not severe/pervasive; nurse’s comment not tied to gender; supervisor’s remark not "extremely serious." |
| Whether termination violated the Whistleblower’s Protection Act (retaliation for complaints) | Johnson: he engaged in protected complaint activity and was fired in retaliation; temporal proximity supports causation | Hospital: termination followed a thorough HR investigation showing Johnson’s disruptive conduct and safety concerns; termination was for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — record shows HR recommended firing based on investigation of Johnson’s behavior, so no prima facie showing of causation for WPA claim |
| Whether Johnson was discharged because of his sex (sex discrimination) — CAT hire and later termination | Johnson: being passed over for CAT job and supervisor’s gendered comment show sex‑based animus leading to adverse actions | Hospital: no evidence decisionmakers discriminated by sex; termination based on safety/behavioral findings; no causal link from isolated remark to firing | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — no evidence the CAT hire decision was gender‑based and no causal connection between supervisor’s isolated comment and termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Watt v. UniFirst Corp., 969 A.2d 897 (Me. 2009) (elements for hostile‑work‑environment claim under MHRA)
- Nadeau v. Rainbow Rugs, Inc., 675 A.2d 973 (Me. 1996) (objective/subjective hostility standard; conduct must be severe or pervasive)
- Doyle v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 824 A.2d 48 (Me. 2003) (factors for assessing hostile environment: frequency, severity, physical threat, interference with work)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (isolated incidents actionable only if extremely serious)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Brady v. Cumberland Cty., 126 A.3d 1145 (Me. 2015) (WPA prima facie elements and causation standard)