Gorham v. Androscoggin County
2011 ME 63
| Me. | 2011Background
- Gorham, a county jail corrections officer, was suspended without pay in late Sept. 2009 for horseplay incidents.
- Sheriff requested termination, and County Commissioners voted to dismiss Gorham for cause on Nov. 4, 2009.
- The Commissioners issued a written decision with findings and rationale on Nov. 18, 2009.
- Gorham filed suit December 18, 2009 seeking §1983 due process and wrongful termination under 30-A M.R.S. § 501.
- The Superior Court dismissed as untimely under Rule 80B(b), treating the §1983 claim as an alternate form of the administrative appeal.
- The Supreme Judicial Court held that Rule 80B(b) timeliness attaches when Gorham receives the written decision; the §1983 claim can be independent if the remedy via Rule 80B is inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What triggers Rule 80B(b) timeliness? | Gorham contends timeliness begins when the written decision with findings is received. | Gorham's complaint was untimely because the notice was when the action was announced/decided at the hearing. | Timeliness starts on receipt of the written decision required by statute. |
| Is Rule 80B the exclusive remedy for Gorham's claims? | Rule 80B does not adequately address due process independently of the administrative appeal. | Rule 80B provides the sole avenue for review, with §1983 claims duplicative if covered. | Rule 80B is not always exclusive; if it fails to provide adequate remedy for an independent §1983 claim, that claim may proceed. |
| Is Gorham entitled to independent due process review given pre-deprivation suspension? | The suspension occurred before a hearing, so due process was implicated beyond the administrative record. | Any due process concerns can be addressed within Rule 80B review if adequate. | Gorham’s §1983 claim could be independent where pre-deprivation conduct may not be adequately remedied by Rule 80B. |
| Did the record show Gorham had a property interest in continued employment requiring due process before termination? | Gorham had a property interest in continued employment; he deserved notice and a hearing before termination. | The adequacy of post-deprivation procedures could satisfy due process if pre-deprivation review is impracticable. | The record was insufficient to resolve independently; due process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard before deprivation. |
| Are the Sheriff or county entities proper parties in Rule 80B review? | Not central to timeliness; the focus is on Rule 80B eligibility and independence of claims. | The Sheriff’s role may affect the proper party in review, but not timeliness. | Not resolved on this record; not essential to the timeliness holding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rockland Plaza Realty Corp. v. City of Rockland, 2001 ME 81 (Me. 2001) (finality governs timing for administrative appeals)
- Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135 (Me. 2003) (final vote triggers right to appeal when backed by final decision)
- Sawin v. Town of Winslow, 253 A.2d 694 (Me. 1969) (finality prerequisite for administrative appeal)
- Tenants Harbor Gen. Store, LLC v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 2011 ME 6 (Me. 2011) (uniformity and finality in administrative review)
- Woodward v. Town of Newfield, 634 A.2d 1315 (Me. 1993) (concurring view on timing for notice in Rule 80B)
- Quintal v. City of Hallowell, 2008 ME 155 (Me. 2008) (written decision with findings required by FOAA; finality)
- Moreau v. Town of Turner, 661 A.2d 677 (Me. 1995) (pre-deprivation and post-deprivation process; due process)
- Moen v. Town of Fairfield, 1998 ME 135 (Me. 1998) (notice and opportunity to be heard before deprivation)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981) (pre-deprivation process and post-deprivation remedy)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (furthering Parratt on due process deprivations)
- Loudermill, Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v., 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (property interest in employment requires notice and hearing)