321 F. Supp. 3d 155
D. Me.2018Background
- Tara J. Roy, an LPN employed by Correct Care Solutions (CCS) at Maine State Prison, worked in the prison medical clinic and required a MDOC security clearance.
- From 2013–2014 Roy reported multiple incidents: inappropriate comments/contacts by officers (Snow, Turner, Parrow), requests for confidential inmate medical information, and officers filing disciplinary reports against her after she complained.
- MDOC investigated some complaints (Snow reassigned); disputes about whether officers left the clinic unsupervised on Sept. 26, 2014 (surveillance showed at most a brief gap).
- Deputy Warden Ross expressed frustration with Roy’s many complaints; Warden Bouffard, based on reports including Ross’s, concluded Roy misrepresented facts and revoked her security clearance; CCS then terminated Roy on Oct. 2, 2014.
- Roy sued CCS, MDOC, Warden Bouffard, and Deputy Warden Ross asserting Title VII and MHRA claims (sexual harassment/hostile work environment and retaliation) and § 1983 claims (Equal Protection and First Amendment). Defendants moved for summary judgment; court granted all motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MDOC liability under MHRA §4633 | Roy sued MDOC under §4633 for coercion/retaliation despite MDOC not being her employer | Fuhrmann requires MHRA employment claims be brought against an "employer"; MDOC is a non-employer | MDOC not liable under MHRA; summary judgment for MDOC |
| Hostile work environment (Title VII/MHRA) | Repeated sexist comments, romantic advances, name-calling, false reports and social-media harassment created hostile environment | Incidents were isolated/intermittent, not sufficiently severe or pervasive; some acts not sex-based; some conduct time-barred | Court: conduct not severe/pervasive; Snow 2013 incident time-barred; summary judgment for CCS |
| Retaliation (Title VII/MHRA) | Complaints to supervisors about officer misconduct were protected activity; termination was retaliation | CCS lacked authority to correct MDOC officers; reports about MDOC conduct not protected because employer couldn’t remedy | Roy did not engage in protected activity vis-à-vis CCS; summary judgment for CCS |
| §1983 Equal Protection and First Amendment vs. Bouffard & Ross | Defendants failed to stop harassment and retaliated against Roy for complaining (speech on public concern) | No discriminatory intent or disparate treatment shown; speech was workplace grievance/private concern; qualified immunity applies | No evidence of discriminatory intent or public-concern speech; qualified immunity shields Bouffard and Ross; summary judgment for both |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuhrmann v. Staples Office Superstore East, Inc., 58 A.3d 1083 (Me. 2012) (MHRA liability is aimed at employers; limits non-employer and individual-supervisor liability)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (continuing-violation doctrine for hostile work environment claims)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (hostile-work-environment standard: objective and subjective offensiveness; severe or pervasive)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (factors for severity/pervasiveness; employer liability framework)
- Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014) (distinguishes citizen speech from employee speech based on whether statement is ordinarily within job duties)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step analysis)
- Rivera v. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewers Auth., 331 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 2003) (parallels between §1983 Equal Protection and Title VII discrimination elements)