114 A.3d 988
Me.2015Background
- Patricia Galouch was a legal secretary at the Maine Bureau of Insurance; she had a March 2009 settlement resolving prior discipline and agreeing to regular meetings and withdrawal of grievances.
- Beginning in March–June 2009 she communicated directly with a court reporter about perceived breaches of the court reporter’s contract with the State, despite being told to refer contract issues to the contract administrator.
- In December 2009 she sent an erroneous cover letter and received an oral reprimand; grievances were filed by the Union in December 2009 and February 2010.
- The court reporter terminated her contract in January 2010 citing difficulties with Galouch; Galouch was placed on administrative leave and then investigated for exceeding her duties and other performance problems.
- The Department terminated Galouch on October 22, 2010 for performance and conduct reasons; an arbitrator later found no just cause because of the March 2009 settlement (awarded back pay) but refused reinstatement, describing serious performance problems.
- Galouch sued under the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA) and the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA); the superior court granted summary judgment for the Department, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Galouch engaged in WPA-protected activity when reporting alleged contract breaches by a court reporter | Galouch argues her reports reasonably implicated violations of procurement rules and thus were protected whistleblowing | Dept. argues her reports were at most complaints about possible contract breaches and a reasonable person would not view them as unlawful | Court held Galouch did not engage in protected activity because she lacked "reasonable cause" to believe illegality occurred |
| Whether grievances filed (Dec 2009, Feb 2010) were protected activity | Grievances are asserted as protected retaliatory activity | Dept. argues grievances are not in the summary judgment record or are insufficiently supported | Court held grievances were not properly before it in the record and did not raise WPA-protected activity |
| Whether paid administrative leave constituted an adverse employment action | Galouch contends administrative leave led to adverse consequences supporting WPA/MHRA claims | Dept. contends paid leave is not an adverse action | Court did not reach this issue because it found no protected activity; lower court had found paid leave was not adverse |
| Whether Department’s termination was pretextual discrimination | Galouch contends termination was retaliatory/pretextual | Dept. points to investigation findings, performance issues, and arbitrator’s corroboration | Court did not reach pretext because plaintiff failed to show protected activity; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. Town of Phippsburg, 110 A.3d 645 (Me. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Fuhrmann v. Staples Office Superstore E., Inc., 58 A.3d 1083 (Me. 2012) (three-step burden-shifting in employment discrimination summary judgment)
- Currie v. Industrial Security, Inc., 915 A.2d 400 (Me. 2007) (MHRA prohibits discrimination for WPA-protected actions)
- Stewart-Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass’n, 13 A.3d 773 (Me. 2011) (WPA requires subjective good-faith belief and objective reasonable cause)
- Bard v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 590 A.2d 152 (Me. 1991) (WPA requires more than a mere belief that a contract violation might have occurred)
- Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1999) (reasonable belief, not actual illegality, can suffice if objectively reasonable)
- Tripp v. Cole, 425 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2005) (affirming summary judgment where a reasonable person would not view the complained-of request as illegal)