Lee v. Town of Den.
206 A.3d 907
Me.2019Background
- Michael A. Lee was a part-time Code Enforcement Officer for the Town of Denmark under a written employment contract (2003–2014) that required him to perform duties as specified by law and as assigned by the Board of Selectmen.
- In Sept. 2014 the Town Manager directed Lee to report to the Town Manager rather than the Board; Lee complained that this breached his contract and violated Maine law and the Town charter.
- In Apr. 2015 the Board approved a new CEO job description; Lee objected, saying it breached his contract and required a charter process to change.
- In May 2015 Lee was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation into alleged falsified hours; the Board later rescinded the suspension when it found no falsification.
- Lee sued under Maine’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), alleging his suspension was retaliation for reporting the Town’s alleged illegality; the Superior Court granted summary judgment for the Town, finding Lee had not engaged in WPA-protected activity. The appeal challenges only the protected-activity finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lee engaged in WPA-protected activity by reporting the Town’s alleged breach of his employment contract and violation of statute/charter | Lee: informing the Town that changing his reporting line and the job description breached his contract and violated Maine statutes and the charter was a report of illegal activity protected by the WPA | Town: the dispute is an ordinary contract-interpretation disagreement, not a report of illegal activity; no reasonable person would view the Town’s actions as unlawful | The court held Lee did not engage in WPA-protected activity because a mere contract-interpretation dispute, without more, fails the WPA’s "reasonable cause" requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmes v. Mark Travel Corp., 116 A.3d 466 (Me. 2015) (summary-judgment review and viewing facts in light most favorable to nonprevailing party)
- Galouch v. Dep't of Prof'l & Fin. Regulation, 114 A.3d 988 (Me. 2015) (WPA requires reporting something beyond an ordinary contract breach; reasonable-cause standard)
- Stewart-Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass'n, 13 A.3d 773 (Me. 2011) (subjective belief plus objective reasonableness required for WPA protected activity)
- Bard v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 590 A.2d 152 (Me. 1991) (contract dispute alone does not constitute report of illegal activity under whistleblower principles)
- Holland v. Sebunya, 759 A.2d 205 (Me. 2000) (issues not briefed on appeal are considered waived)