265 A.3d 1008
Me.2022Background
- Handlin was a client manager at Broadreach (Mar 2018–Jan 2019) and relayed to a coworker a client contact’s critical comments about Broadreach’s president based on a private, nonwork party.
- The coworker told Broadreach’s VP, who told the president; the president met the hotel's general manager and later the contact, both of whom denied that the contact linked the president’s private conduct to Broadreach’s business.
- In January 2019 Broadreach offered Handlin a final written warning or a separation agreement; Handlin chose separation and left the company.
- After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Handlin sued alleging retaliation/ discharge in violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), the Maine Human Rights Act, and 26 M.R.S. § 570, plus related tort claims.
- Broadreach moved for summary judgment; Handlin did not timely oppose, the court deemed Broadreach’s factual statements admitted and granted summary judgment, and later denied Handlin’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief based on alleged defective electronic service and due process concerns.
- Handlin appealed the summary judgment and the denial of Rule 60(b) relief; the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Handlin’s report to a coworker is protected activity under the WPA | Handlin argues her report was a good‑faith report of a legal or rule violation deserving WPA protection | Broadreach argues the report concerned private, nonwork conduct unrelated to employer obligations and so is not protected | The court held the report was not WPA‑protected because it concerned a private, nonwork event and was essentially gossip, so WPA claim fails |
| Whether § 570 (occupational safety) covers Handlin’s report | Handlin contends her report was a protected complaint about workplace safety/health | Broadreach contends the report had nothing to do with occupational safety or health | The court held § 570 does not apply because the reported conduct did not concern employee safety or health |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given Handlin’s failure to oppose and admitted facts | Handlin contends she did not receive effective service and should have been allowed to oppose | Broadreach contends it properly served the motion electronically and the unopposed facts are deemed admitted | The court held Broadreach’s electronic service was permitted, the facts were deemed admitted, and summary judgment was proper as a matter of law |
| Whether the judgment was void under Rule 60(b)(4) for defective service (due process) | Handlin argues M.R. Civ. P. 5(b) bars electronic service of summary‑judgment records over 50 pages, so judgment is void | Broadreach argues Rule 5(b) permits electronic service and only makes production optional for >50 pages; service was complete when transmitted | The court held Rule 5(b) does not prohibit electronic transmission of large records, service was effective, and the judgment was not void |
Key Cases Cited
- Nadeau v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC, 247 A.3d 717 (Me. 2021) (defines WPA protection: good‑faith reports of legal violations)
- Stewart‑Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass’n, 13 A.3d 773 (Me. 2011) (Maine Human Rights Act retaliation framework tied to protected activity)
- Bonin v. Crepeau, 873 A.2d 346 (Me. 2005) (summary judgment appropriate when plaintiff fails to establish prima facie case)
- Halliday v. Henry, 116 A.3d 1270 (Me. 2015) (unopposed, properly supported facts in a summary‑judgment statement may be deemed admitted)
- Reliable Copy Serv., Inc. v. Liberty, 32 A.3d 1041 (Me. 2011) (standard for reviewing whether a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4))
- Cookson v. Brewer Sch. Dep’t, 974 A.2d 276 (Me. 2009) (summary‑judgment standard; view facts in light most favorable to nonprevailing party)