Richard C. Hickson v. Vescom Corporation
2014 ME 27
| Me. | 2014Background
- Hickson worked for Vescom at the Domtar mill in Baileyville under Vescom-Domtar contract; he was a shift supervisor responsible for gate security and enforcing safety policies.
- Vescom adopted Domtar safety standards, including respirator use and no open-toed footwear; Hickson helped enforce these policies.
- On July 8, 2006, Hickson observed safety lapses during Governor Baldacci’s mill visit (no respirators, improper footwear) and logged a note in Vescom’s log.
- Supervisor Norman reviewed the log; Beal discussed the issue with Hickson and acknowledged awareness of the problem; Hickson and Beal clashed over how it was addressed.
- On July 25, 2006, Hickson emailed the Governor about the safety concerns from the tour; Vescom terminated him on July 26, partly based on the email and on prior, unrecorded incidents.
- Hickson filed a WPA (Whistleblowers’ Protection Act) claim in 2010; a 2013 jury awarded him damages; Vescom appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Hickson’s July 25 email constitute a legally protected WPA report about Vescom? | Hickson acted in good faith to report a Vescom safety concern. | WPA protects reports about the employer’s violations or unsafe practices, not unrelated parties. | Yes; the report related to Vescom’s safety duties and was protectable. |
| Was there proper prior notice to Vescom before reporting to the public body? | Hickson reported to a Vescom supervisor and allowed a reasonable opportunity to correct. | The report should be limited to a direct employer action; prior notice requirement was not met for this type of report. | Yes; Hickson notified a supervisor and given Vescom a reasonable chance to correct. |
| Did the jury instructions correctly define protected whistleblower activity under the WPA? | Instructions should align with Costain and include protections for employer-related violations. | Superior emphasis on reporting to a public body rather than employer reports was appropriate. | Yes; the court’s instructions adequately reflected the statute and relevant case law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 2008 ME 142 (Me. 2008) (limits WPA protection to reports about the employer)
- Budzko v. One City Ctr. Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 2001 ME 37 (Me. 2001) (judgment standard for WPA connection between protected activity and adverse action)
- Beane v. Me. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 2005 ME 104 (Me. 2005) (evidentiary support and scope of appellate review in WPA context)
- Clewley v. Whitney, 2002 ME 61 (Me. 2002) (standards for granting/denying jury instruction requests)
- Central Maine Power Co. v. Devereux Marine, Inc., 2013 ME 37 (Me. 2013) (statutory interpretation framework for WPA context)