223 A.3d 904
Me.2020Background
- Susan Hamilton was a USM employee in Multicultural Student Affairs; after complaints in 2015 USM retained Ann Chapman (a nonlawyer employee of Drummond Woodsum) to conduct a neutral investigation.
- Chapman produced a report finding Hamilton created a hostile environment based on race; USM accepted the findings at successive administrative levels and terminated Hamilton in May 2016.
- Hamilton filed and later settled a federal suit against USM and related officials; she then sued Drummond Woodsum and Chapman in Maine Superior Court asserting defamation, tortious interference, and negligence (Count 4).
- The superior court dismissed the defamation and related counts as time-barred, denied DW’s special motion to dismiss under Maine’s anti‑SLAPP statute, and denied MTCA immunity as to the remaining negligence claim.
- DW appealed, raising (1) that the investigative report was petitioning activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute, and (2) that DW and Chapman were governmental employees entitled to MTCA immunity; the Law Court reviewed the denial of both dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chapman's investigative report is "petitioning" activity under Maine's anti‑SLAPP statute | Hamilton: report was an internal personnel investigation and not petitioning activity | DW: the report to a government actor is petitioning activity protected by anti‑SLAPP | Court: report was not petitioning activity; affirmed denial of anti‑SLAPP dismissal |
| Whether DW/Chapman are governmental employees entitled to MTCA immunity | Hamilton: DW acted as an independent contractor and cannot claim MTCA immunity | DW: acting as USM’s agent performing a governmental function, they are covered by MTCA immunity | Court: pleadings showed DW performed a governmental function for USM; MTCA immunity applies; vacated denial and remanded to dismiss Count 4 |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaudette v. Davis, 160 A.3d 1190 (Me. 2017) (anti‑SLAPP petitioning activity analyzed in context of seeking redress from government)
- Hearts with Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick, 202 A.3d 1189 (Me. 2019) (purpose of anti‑SLAPP is to protect petitioning and public participation)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2011) (right to petition protects communications to government)
- Day's Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway, 145 A.3d 1030 (Me. 2016) (private contractor acting at government direction can be treated as a governmental employee for MTCA)
- Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios v. Ayotte, 606 A.2d 780 (Me. 1992) (private attorney acting for municipality is covered by MTCA despite independent‑contractor label)
- Doe v. Graham, 977 A.2d 391 (Me. 2009) (extending MTCA immunity to private professionals who perform statutorily authorized governmental functions)