Winslow v. Aroostook County, 736 F.3d 23

Background

Dena Winslow was Executive Director of the Local Area I Workforce Investment Board (LWIB), paid by Aroostook County; federal monitors found her reporting structure noncompliant because no separate fiscal-agent agreement existed.
Federal Department of Labor monitors conducted a November 2009 compliance review, produced exit interview notes, and reported findings to Aroostook County administrators.
Aroostook officials (County Administrator Beaulieu and the LWIB CLEOs) pursued moving fiscal-agent responsibilities to Northern Maine Development Commission (NMDC) to cure the compliance problem.
Winslow circulated the monitors’ exit notes (at Beaulieu’s direction) and separately emailed LWIB members about the fiscal-agent transition; she was later terminated by Aroostook and learned NMDC would advertise a new Director of Workforce Development position.
NMDC hired another applicant after interviewing Winslow; Winslow sued NMDC under the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (MWPA) and related MHRA failure-to-hire theory, alleging retaliatory refusal to hire for her whistleblowing.
The district court granted summary judgment for NMDC; on appeal the First Circuit affirmed, concluding Winslow was not a whistleblower under MWPA and NMDC was not liable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Winslow engaged in protected whistleblowing under the MWPA	Winslow says reporting the WIA compliance problem (that she reported to the Board rather than County) was a protected report of a federal-law violation by her employer	NMDC argues Winslow did not ‘‘blow the whistle’’ because monitors uncovered and reported the violation, Aroostook and LWIB leadership promptly addressed it, and Winslow’s communications were within job duties or directed by superiors	Court: Not protected — monitors, not Winslow, originated and reported the violation; Winslow disseminated info largely at direction or as part of duties, so no MWPA protection
Whether NMDC was Winslow’s employer for MWPA purposes	Winslow implies NMDC had an obligation to hire her when it became fiscal agent	NMDC contends it never employed Winslow and had no obligation to hire her; the new position differed and was approved by DOL	Court: Doubtful NMDC was Winslow’s employer; no evidence NMDC violated law in hiring decision
Whether a MHRA failure-to-hire claim (for protected activity) lies against NMDC	Winslow asserts MHRA §4572(1)(A) protects applicants who were retaliated against for prior protected actions	NMDC contends Winslow did not engage in protected activity and thus cannot claim failure-to-hire liability under MHRA	Court: No MHRA claim because Winslow did not engage in protected MWPA activity; summary judgment for NMDC affirmed
Whether reports made as part of job duties are MWPA-protected	Winslow argues her communications were whistleblowing even if they were work-related	NMDC and court point to Maine and other precedent holding reports that are part of job duties (or done at supervisor instruction) are not protected disclosures	Court: Reports made pursuant to job duties or at supervisor instruction are not whistleblower disclosures; Winslow’s communications fall in that category

Key Cases Cited

Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Field, 670 F.3d 93 (1st Cir.) (summary-judgment standards and viewing facts in favor of nonmovant)
Fontánez-Núñez v. Janssen Ortho LLC, 447 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.) (standard of review on summary judgment)
Suarez v. Pueblo Int'l, Inc., 229 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.) (viewing record favorably to opposing party on summary judgment)
Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A., 954 A.2d 1051 (Me. 2008) (MWPA protects employees who report to an employer about violations committed by that employer)
Fuhrmann v. Staples Office Superstore E., Inc., 58 A.3d 1083 (Me. 2012) (elements for MWPA retaliation claims and remedial scheme)
Claudio-Gotay v. Becton Dickinson Caribe, Ltd., 375 F.3d 99 (1st Cir.) (reports made as part of job duties are not protected activity)
Kidwell v. Sybaritic, Inc., 784 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. 2010) (in-house compliance reporting does not constitute whistleblowing)