Lawson v. Willis, 204 A.3d 133

Lawson, an assistant attorney general in the Child Support Enforcement Division, was supervised by Debby Willis and employed from September 2016 until his termination in June 2017.
After a dispute about statutory interpretation, Willis allegedly began giving Lawson negative evaluations and wrote a memo accusing him of refusing to serve a party.
Willis recommended Lawson’s termination to the Attorney General and provided a performance memo accusing him of rudeness in court.
Lawson sued Willis for libel per se and slander per se, alleging false statements damaged his reputation and caused him to take lower-paying work.
Willis moved to dismiss under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing she was absolutely immune under the Maine Tort Claims Act’s discretionary function immunity, 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(C).
The Superior Court granted dismissal; the Supreme Judicial Court for Maine affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Willis’s reports about Lawson’s job performance are protected by discretionary function immunity	Lawson: reporting/evaluating performance is ministerial or factual (accurate vs inaccurate) and thus not a discretionary function	Willis: evaluating, reprimanding, and recommending termination involve judgment related to government employment objectives and are discretionary	Held: Immunity applies; performance evaluation and recommendation are discretionary and absolutely immune even if abused
Whether Lawson’s complaint pleaded non-immunity-based publications with sufficient specificity to survive a 12(b)(6) dismissal	Lawson: complaint’s phrase “to third parties, including the Attorney General” leaves open the possibility of publications outside supervisory role that would not be immune	Willis: complaint alleges only publications arising from supervisory duties protected by immunity	Held: Allegations are too vague to give fair notice of non‑immune claims; dismissal proper

Ramsey v. Baxter Title Co., 54 A.3d 710 (Me. 2012) (standard for treating complaint allegations as admitted on appeal)
Hathaway v. City of Portland, 845 A.2d 1168 (Me. 2004) (de novo review of 12(b)(6) legal errors)
Darling v. Augusta Mental Health Inst., 535 A.2d 421 (Me. 1987) (four-factor test for discretionary function immunity)
Carroll v. City of Portland, 736 A.2d 279 (Me. 1999) (ministerial vs discretionary acts analysis)
Quintal v. City of Hallowell, 956 A.2d 88 (Me. 2008) (reprimanding and recommending termination are discretionary)
Berard v. McKinnis, 699 A.2d 1148 (Me. 1997) (absolute immunity under § 8111(1)(C) applies even if discretion abused)
Argereow v. Weisberg, 195 A.3d 1210 (Me. 2018) (pleading standard on review of dismissal)
Vahlsing Christina Corp. v. Stanley, 487 A.2d 264 (Me. 1985) (complaint must give defendant fair notice in defamation cases)
Nadeau v. Frydrych, 108 A.3d 1254 (Me. 2014) (pleading requirements in defamation actions)