Winslow v. Aroostook County, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Winslow v. Aroostook County, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1319DENA WI NSLOW,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

AROOSTOOK COUNTY,

Def endant ,

NORTHERN MAI NE DEVELOPMENT COMMI SSI ON, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Geor ge Z. Si ngal , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Thompson, Ci r cui t J udges.

Ar t hur J . Gr ei f , wi t h whom J ul i e D. Far r and Gi l ber t & Gr ei f ,P. A. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Phi l i p J . Moss, wi t h whom Mel i nda J . Cat er i ne and Fi sher &Phi l l i ps LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee Nor t her n Mai ne Devel opmentCommi ss i on, I nc.

Pet er T. Mar chesi , Cassandr a S. Shaf f er , and Wheel er & Ar ey,P. A. , on br i ef f or appel l ee Ar oost ook Count y.

November 15, 2013


2/21

LYNCH, Chief Judge. Dena Wi nsl ow appeal s f r om t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s gr ant of summar y j udgment i n f avor of t he Nor t her n

Mai ne Devel opment Commi ss i on, I nc. ( "NMDC") on her cl ai m t hat

NMDC' s f ai l ur e to hi r e her when i t became the f i scal agent f or t he

Wor kf or ce I nvest ment Act gr ant const i t ut ed whi st l ebl ower

r et al i at i on under t he Mai ne Whi st l ebl ower s' Pr ot ect i on Act

( "MWPA") , Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 26, 831 et seq. We agr ee wi t h t he

di st r i ct cour t t hat , on t he undi sput ed f act s, Wi nsl ow i s not a

whi st l ebl ower under t he MWPA and so af f i r m.

I .

Because thi s case comes bef or e us on appeal f r omsummary

j udgment , we r eci t e t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avorabl e t o

Wi nsl ow. See Val l ey For ge I ns. Co. v. Fi el d, 670 F. 3d 93, 96- 97

( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

A. Backgr ound

Thi s case st ems f r om a r epor t done by a f eder al agency

r evi ewi ng a l ocal ar ea f eder al gr ant sub- r eci pi ent i n Mai ne f or

compl i ance wi t h pr ogr am r equi r ement s. Under t he Wor kf or ce

I nvest ment Act of 1998 ( "WI A") , 29 U. S. C. 2801 et seq. , Mai ne has

obt ai ned f eder al f undi ng t o st r engt hen l ocal wor kf or ces and car eer

oppor t uni t i es. As a condi t i on of el i gi bi l i t y, Mai ne was r equi r ed

t o est abl i sh a st at e wor kf or ce i nvest ment boar d. The gover nor t hen

desi gnat ed l ocal wor kf or ce i nvest ment ar eas i n whi ch WI A act i vi t i es

ar e admi ni st er ed. 29 U. S. C. 2831( a) ( 1) ( A) .

-2-


3/21

Ar oost ook Count y i s i n Local Ar ea I , t he l ar gest

wor kf or ce i nvest ment ar ea i n t he st at e, and i s under t he aut hor i t y

of t he Local Ar ea I Wor kf or ce I nvest ment Boar d ( "LWI B") . Fr om1999

unt i l ear l y 2010, Ar oost ook Count y was t he gr ant sub- r eci pi ent f or

t he LWI B. I n t hat capaci t y, t he Count y act ed as t he f i scal agent

f or t he gr ant and over saw t he admi ni st r at i ve and f i nanci al

operat i ons of t he r el evant WI A pr ogr ams.

I n March of 2008, Wi nsl ow was hi r ed as t he Execut i ve

Di r ect or of t he LWI B. Consi st ent wi t h t he j ob descr i pt i on i n pl ace

at t he t i me, Wi nsl ow r epor t ed t o and was supervi sed by Doug

Beaul i eu, t he Ar oost ook Count y Admi ni st r at or . She r ecei ved her

sal ar y and benef i t s f r omAr oost ook Count y, and the Count y used WI A

f unds f or t hi s pur pose. But appar ent l y t her e was no expl i ci t

f i scal agent agr eement between the LWI B and the Count y and thi s

r ai sed concer ns. Wi nsl ow cl ai ms t o have been a whi st l ebl ower as t o

t hose concer ns.

B. Feder al Moni t or i ng Vi s i t

I n November 2009, f ederal moni t ors f r omt he Depar t ment of

Labor undert ook a compl i ance r evi ew of t he WI A gr ant s i n Mai ne,

i ncl udi ng of t he LWI B. The moni t or s f ound t hat Wi nsl ow' s j ob

descr i pt i on was not i n compl i ance wi t h f eder al pr ogr am

r equi r ement s1because, absent an expr ess agr eement bet ween t he LWI B

1 Fol l owi ng t he vi si t , t he Depar t ment of Labor ul t i mat el yi ssued a r epor t t o t he Mai ne Depar t ment of Labor out l i ni ng i t sf i ndi ngs. The r epor t was i ssued on Apr i l 13, 2010, sl i ght l y over

-3-


4/21

and Ar oost ook Count y, i t was i mpr oper f or Wi nsl ow t o r epor t t o t he

Count y r ather t han t o t he LWI B. On November 19, t he f ederal

moni t or s conduct ed a pr el i mi nar y exi t i nt er vi ew at t he of f i ce wher e

Beaul i eu and Wi nsl ow worked, whi ch Wi nsl ow at t ended. Af t er t he

exi t i nt er vi ew, f eder al moni t or Ti m Theber ge went t o Beaul i eu and

t ol d hi mof t he moni t or s' f i ndi ngs. Beaul i eu t hen spoke t o Wi nsl ow

and i nst r uct ed her t o t ype up her not es f r om t he exi t i nt er vi ew

meet i ng and emai l t hemt o hi m. These exi t i nt er vi ew not es i ncl uded

a sect i on on f i ndi ngs, whi ch st at ed, as i t em number f i ve: "My j ob

descr i pt i on i ndi cat es I amsuper vi sed by t he Count y Admi ni st r at or ,

however , I wor k f or t he Boar d, who super vi se me. Thi s i s r ef l ect ed

i n 117D3Bi i . " 2 The exi t i nt er vi ew not es i ncl uded a separ at e

sect i on on "Ar eas of Concer n. " They al so st at ed t hat t he f eder al

moni t ors woul d meet wi t h t he St ate dur i ng t he week of J anuary 6- 7,

and t hat t he st at e woul d t hen dr af t a f or mal r esponse, af t er whi ch

t her e woul d be a f or mal f eder al r esponse. As t o t he l ocal r epor t ,

of f i ci al s woul d be gi ven unt i l J anuar y 30 t o r esol ve t hese

f i ndi ngs.

a mont h bef or e Wi nsl ow i ni t i at ed t hi s sui t .

2Appar ent l y t he exi t i nt er vi ew not es' r ef er ence t o "117D3Bi i "i s a r ef er ence t o sect i on 117( d) ( 3) ( B) ( i i ) of t he Wor kf or ceI nvest ment Act of 1998. That sect i on r eads: "The f unct i ons of t hel ocal boar d shal l i ncl ude t he f ol l owi ng: . . . ( i i ) St af f . Thel ocal boar d may empl oy st af f . " Workf orce I nvest ment Act of 1998,Pub. L. No. 105- 220, 112 St at . 936, 957- 58 ( codi f i ed at 29 U. S. C. 2832) .

-4-


5/21

Then, al so at Beaul i eu' s di r ect i on, Wi nsl ow sent t he exi t

i nt ervi ew notes t o Barr y McCr um, t he LWI B Chai r man, al ong wi t h

Chr i st opher Gardner and Norman Four ni er , t he two co- Chi ef Local

El ect ed Of f i ci al s ( "CLEOs" ) of t he LWI B. The CLEOs ( and not t he

f ul l LWI B Boar d) ar e r esponsi bl e f or desi gnat i ng a WI A f i scal

agent . See 29 U. S. C. 2832( d) ( 3) ( B) ( i ) ( I I ) . Those exi t i nt er vi ew

not es r epor t i ng on t he f eder al moni t or s' f i ndi ngs, ci r cul at ed at

Beaul i eu' s r equest , f or mt he i ni t i al basi s f or Wi nsl ow' s asser t i on

t hat she i s a whi st l ebl ower . Def endant NMDC i s a separ at e ent i t y,

not i nvol ved i n t he noncompl i ance f i ndi ngs r egar di ng Ar oost ook

Count y.

At a December 2 publ i c Aroost ook County Commi ssi oners'

meet i ng, Beaul i eu i nf or med t he commi ssi oner s of t he r epor t f r omt he

f eder al moni t or i ng vi si t . The mi nut es of t he meet i ng r epor t ed t hat

"one of t he f i ndi ngs [ of t he compl i ance r evi ew] i s t hat t he

Execut i ve Di r ect or shoul d, under t he l aw, r epor t t o t he [ LWI B]

Boar d, " "not t he Count y Admi ni st r at or . " Af t er t he mi nut es wer e

adopt ed at a l at er County Commi ssi oners' meet i ng on December 16,

t hey wer e post ed onl i ne i n f ul l f or publ i c revi ew.

Dur i ng t hi s per i od, Beaul i eu was i n di scussi ons wi t h t he

t wo CLEOs and t he Chai r man of t he LWI B about prepar i ng an agreement

maki ng a di f f er ent ent i t y t he new f i scal agent f or t he LWI B. The

pr oposal was t hat def endant NMDC be t he f i scal agent . For t hi s

pur pose, around December 15, Beaul i eu met wi t h Robert Cl ark, t he

-5-


6/21

Execut i ve Di r ect or of NMDC and al so a member of t he LWI B Boar d, t o

di scuss t he t r ansi t i on. I n pr epar at i on f or t hat meet i ng, Cl ar k

compl et ed a dr af t t r ansi t i on pl an, whi ch i ncl uded as par t of t he

pr ocess "Not i f i cat i on of st af f t er mi nat i on - - December 31. " On

December 28, Beaul i eu f or war ded t o Cl ark t he then- cur r ent dr af t of

t he l et t er t hat he had pr evi ousl y sent t o t he CLEOs f or t hem t o

send t o t he Mai ne Depar t ment of Labor . I n t hat emai l t o Cl ar k,

Beaul i eu st at ed: "Not e how I deal t wi t h t he st af f i ng i ssue. I t

l eaves i t up t o you. " The t wo CLEOs of t he LWI B di d not obj ect t o

t he staf f t er mi nat i on pr oposal .

On t he br oader t opi c of t he t r ansi t i on t o a new f i scal

agent , Beaul i eu was al so i n communi cat i on wi t h t he CLEOs, i ncl udi ng

i n a ser i es of December 29 emai l s. Beaul i eu i ndi cat ed t hat f eder al

l aw r equi r ed there be an agr eement between the LWI B and NMDC,

encl osed a dr af t , and st r essed: " t hi s agr eement i s mandat ed; i t i s

not opt i onal . I j ust want t o make sure we ar e i n compl i ance, so we

don' t j eopar di ze [ l osi ng] our l ocal pr ogr am. " ( emphasi s added) .

Wi nsl ow pl ayed no rol e i n t hese di scussi ons.

I n t hese December 29 emai l s, Beaul i eu and t he CLEOs

agr eed that t he LWI B Boar d needed to be kept i nf ormed of t he

pr oposed f i scal agent agr eement . Beaul i eu suggest ed t hat "a not i ce

t o t he f ul l Boar d by t he CLEOs and the Boar d Chai r woul d be t he

most appr opr i ate r out e. " On t he t opi c of how t o communi cat e t he

-6-


7/21

i nf or mat i on t o t he f ul l LWI B Boar d, Beaul i eu expl ai ned t he posi t i on

he was i n:

I t i s gener al l y not my f unct i on or pr er ogat i vet o communi cat e di r ect l y wi t h t he Boar d. That

i s a f unct i on of t he Boar d Di r ect or [ Wi nsl ow] .As a pr act i cal mat t er , one of t he f i ndi ngs oft he Feds, whi ch sai d t hat t he Boar d Di r ect orshoul d not r epor t t o t he Count y Admi ni st r at or ,has made my abi l i t y t o supervi se t he concernedi ndi vi dual di f f i cul t , i f not i mpossi bl e, t omanage. So, as i t r el at es t o t he Boar dDi r ect or , I can happi l y suggest act i ons, but Iamunabl e t o ensure compl i ance wi t h t he same.

Whi l e Beaul i eu was deal i ng wi t h t he LWI B Boar d l eadershi p

t o ef f ect uat e a sol ut i on t o t he f eder al f i ndi ngs, Wi nsl ow t ook

st eps on her own. On December 30, Wi nsl ow vi si t ed Cl ar k' s of f i ce

unannounced t o dr op of f a CD of WI A f i nanci al pol i ci es. Whi l e

t her e, Wi nsl ow hel d out her hands, l ooked up at t he cei l i ng, and

sai d "So, where are you goi ng t o put me?" Cl ark responded t hat

t hey wer e l ooki ng at doi ng "somet hi ng di f f er ent . "

Fol l owi ng t hi s encount er , Wi nsl ow bel i eved t hat i t was

her r esponsi bi l i t y as Execut i ve Di r ect or t o i nf or mal l LWI B member s

of her vi ew of t he event s. To t hat end, wi t hout obt ai ni ng

per mi ssi on f r om Beaul i eu, t he LWI B Chai r man, or t he t wo CLEOs, on

December 31, she sent al l of t he LWI B members and " i nt erest ed

par t i es" ( i ncl udi ng Beaul i eu) an emai l she aut hor ed ent i t l ed

"Opport uni t y. " Whi l e i t acknowl edged t hat i t was t he CLEOs who had

aut hor i t y as t o desi gnat i ng t he f i scal agent , i t nonet hel ess

i nf or med t he ot her boar d member s about t hei r r esponsi bi l i t i es as t o

-7-


8/21

t he f i scal agent . The emai l al so ment i oned t he pr oposal t hat t he

NMDC become t he f i scal agent . I t t hen out l i ned t he " l arge amount

of work" ahead, assumi ng t hat she woul d be the person worki ng wi t h

t he boar d.

The "Oppor t uni t y" emai l t hen addressed her proposal t hat

t he LWI B newl y schedul e an i nt er i m meet i ng, st at i ng:

I f you ar e i nt er est ed i n hol di ng an i nt er i mboar d meet i ng pr i or t o our next r egul ar l yschedul ed meet i ng on Febr uary 11, pl ease r epl yt o al l on t hi s memo t o r equest i t . Accor di ngt o our Boar d by- l aws, i f f i ve Boar d membersr equest an i nt er i m meet i ng one wi l l beschedul ed.

Thi s "Oppor t uni t y" emai l provoked r esponses.

Af t er r ecei vi ng Wi nsl ow' s emai l , Beaul i eu emai l ed Chr i s

Gar dner , a CLEO, and sai d: "Thi s i s i nsubor di nat i on. [ LWI B Chai r ]

Bar r y McCr um i s upset . " I t was t he Chai r ' s r esponsi bi l i t y t o

schedul e meet i ngs, and t he next meet i ng had al r eady been schedul ed.

And i n a l ater emai l exchange wi t h McCr um, Cl ark wr ote about t he

"Oppor t uni t y" emai l : " I f I was her boss she woul d be f i r ed

i mmedi at el y f or i nsubor di nat i on. "

Beaul i eu schedul ed a meet i ng wi t h Wi nsl ow on J anuary 4 t o

r epr i mand her f or sendi ng t he "Oppor t uni t y" emai l . At about ni ne

t hat morni ng, i n advance of t he meet i ng, Beaul i eu emai l ed McCr um,

t he LWI B Chai r man, and t he LWI B CLEOs t he r epr i mand memo t hat he

pl anned t o gi ve Wi nsl ow at t he meet i ng. He di d not send i t t o

Cl ar k. That memo obj ect ed t o t he "Oppor t uni t y" emai l i n t hat i t

-8-


9/21

"essent i al l y sol i ci t ed i nt er est i n an i nt er i m boar d meet i ng . . .

wi t hout t he knowl edge or appr oval of our Boar d Chai r , Bar r y

McCr um. " I t t er med t he emai l "unpr of essi onal , i nappr opr i at e and i n

di r ect cont r adi ct i on t o pr oper pr ot ocol " and st at ed t hat Wi nsl ow

had "cr eat ed an embar r ass i ng si t uat i on f or t he Boar d, t he Count y of

Ar oost ook and t he busi ness sect or i n bot h count i es, i n par t i cul ar . "

At 11: 30 t hat same morni ng, af t er he met wi t h Wi nsl ow,

Beaul i eu emai l ed McCr umand the CLEOs, st at i ng t hat he had a "l ong,

pr oduct i ve meet i ng" wi t h Wi nsl ow, and t hat he had "deci ded t o

r esci nd" hi s ear l i er memo t o her . Wi nsl ow was copi ed on t hi s

emai l .

The next day, on J anuar y 5, Wi nsl ow sent t o Beaul i eu,

McCr um, and t he CLEOs, and addr essed t o t he Ar oost ook County

Commi ssi oner s a r esponse t hat out l i ned her obj ect i ons t o Beaul i eu' s

memo, now r esci nded. I n r el evant par t , Wi nsl ow' s memo r ead:

The memo you wer e copi ed on yest er day f r omDoug i s an out r ageous at t empt t o sl ander me.Ther e i s not hi ng embar r ass i ng t o t he County ofAr oost ook, nor t o any of you, because Iper f ormed my j ob dut i es and r esponded t or equest s f or i nf ormat i on f r om Boar d member s.The i nf or mat i on I provi ded ( as r equest ed) , waswhat Federal Law says, and what t he Boar d ofDi r ect or ' s By- l aws say. Ther e i s not hi ngt her e t hat shoul d have been an embar r assment ,and cer t ai nl y not hi ng t hat i s a secret .

McCr um f or war ded Wi nsl ow' s l et t er t o Cl ar k l at er t hat day.

On J anuary 6, Chai r man McCr um f orwarded Beaul i eu' s

or i gi nal r epr i mand emai l t o Cl ar k, t o gi ve Cl ar k some cont ext f or

-9-


10/21

Wi nsl ow' s J anuary 5 memo. I n r ef erence t o Beaul i eu' s memo, Cl ark

r esponded: "Wel l , t hat ' s al l t r ue! ! " McCr umt hen r esponded: "Har d

t o ar gue wi t h t he t r ut h. "

C. Transi t i on t o NMDC

On J anuar y 14, 2010, t he t wo CLEOs of t he LWI B si gned an

agr eement desi gnat i ng NMDC as t he f i scal agent ef f ect i ve Febr uar y

15; t he agr eement i ncl uded a subagr eement t hat NMDC woul d " [ s] erve

as s t af f t o t he Local Ar ea 1 Wor kf or ce I nvest ment Boar d ( LWI B) and

per f or m dut i es assi gned by t he CLEOs and [ t he] LWI B. " Thi s was

i nt ended t o r emedy t he compl i ance i ssues f ound by t he f ederal

moni t ors, 3 and the CLEOs i nf ormed t he Commi ssi oner of t he Mai ne

Depart ment of Labor of t he i mpendi ng t r ansi t i on t he next day,

J anuar y 15. I n si gni ng t hi s agreement f or t he LWI B, t he LWI B CLEOs

knew t hat NMDC woul d pr ovi de st af f i ng f or t he LWI B and had pl anned

t o adver t i se and seek appl i cat i ons f or a new Di r ect or of Wor kf or ce

Devel opment , whose j ob woul d encompass t he f unct i ons of t he LWI B

Execut i ve Di r ect or .

On J anuar y 15, a day af t er t he agr eement bet ween NMDC and

t he LWI B was s i gned and two weeks af t er Wi nsl ow had sent t he

"Oppor t uni t y" emai l , t he LWI B hel d a boar d meet i ng, dur i ng whi ch

Wi nsl ow served as secr et ar y and, i n her capaci t y as Execut i ve

3 Af t er wor ki ng wi t h bot h t he f eder al moni t or s and Mai neDepar t ment of Labor of f i ci al s t o ensur e t hat t he new or gani zat i onalst r uct ur e was i n compl i ance wi t h t he WI A, NMDC ent ered i nt o a f i nalmanagement and ser vi ces agr eement wi t h t he CLEOs on Apr i l 15, 2010.

-10-


11/21

Di r ect or , gave a pr esent at i on on t he f eder al moni t or i ng vi si t and

passed out copi es of t he WI A. At Beaul i eu' s request , at t hi s

meet i ng Wi nsl ow pr ovi ded al l of t he LWI B Boar d members wi t h copi es

of t he exi t i nt ervi ew notes. ( Some members had r ecei ved t hem

ear l i er . ) As to what Wi nsl ow sai d dur i ng her pr esent at i on, Cl ar k

i nt er r upt ed her at sever al poi nt s t o l oudl y voi ce di sagr eement wi t h

what she was sayi ng, and cal l ed her "di sgust i ng" dur i ng t he

meet i ng. Cl ark st ated t hat he had r ead t he ent i r e WI A l aw and t hat

Wi nsl ow had not pr esent ed some of t he rel evant par t s.

On J anuary 25, Wi nsl ow was f ormal l y i nf ormed t hat NMDC

i nt ended t o adver t i se f or a new Execut i ve Di r ect or af t er i t became

t he f i scal agent f or t he LWI B. At l east by t hi s poi nt , i f not

bef ore, Wi nsl ow knew t hat t he new f i scal agent woul d not

necessar i l y empl oy her . As sai d, she met wi t h Cl ark unannounced on

December 30 and r ecei ved no assurance she woul d be r ehi r ed. She

sent her "Oppor t uni t y" emai l on December 31.

I n J anuar y, NMDC post ed a j ob l i st i ng f or a posi t i on i t

t er med Di r ect or of Wor kf or ce Devel opment ; i n addi t i on t o sever al

ot her r esponsi bi l i t i es, t hi s Di r ector woul d al so ser ve as t he

Execut i ve Di r ect or of t he LWI B. Whi l e t he Di r ect or of Wor kf or ce

Devel opment posi t i on had t he r esponsi bi l i t i es of t he LWI B Execut i ve

Di r ector , t he t wo posi t i ons wer e not i dent i cal . I n addi t i on t o

LWI B Execut i ve Di r ect or r esponsi bi l i t i es, t he Di r ect or of Wor kf or ce

devel opment woul d "provi de prof essi onal management and

-11-


12/21

admi ni st r at i ve ser vi ces at t he boar d l evel i n di r ect i ng f i scal

pl anni ng, budget i ng, cont r act devel opment , and assessment of

Workf orce I nvest ment Act ( WI A) pr ogr ams i n Local Ar ea 1. " The

l i st i ng st at ed t hat "[ i ] nt er est ed appl i cant s shoul d possess a

Mast er s Degr ee i n publ i c admi ni st r at i on, or r el at ed f i el d, or a

combi nat i on of a Bachel or s Degr ee and rel at ed exper i ence i n

economi c devel opment , workf orce devel opment , and publ i c

admi ni st r at i on. " The appl i cat i on deadl i ne was Febr uar y 10.

On Febr uar y 4, Beaul i eu, on behal f of Ar oost ook, i nf or med

Wi nsl ow vi a emai l t hat :

Because t he Count y of Ar oost ook wi l l no l ongerbe i nvol ved wi t h t he admi ni st r at i on of t hi spr ogr am, at t he Febr uary 3, 2010 Count yCommi ss i oners' Meet i ng, t he Ar oost ook Boar d ofCount y Commi ss i oners appr oved t he t ermi nat i onof your empl oyment as Execut i ve Di r ector ofWor kf or ce I nvest ment Act Pr ogr am f or LocalAr ea 1 ef f ect i ve Febr uar y 12, 2010.

NMDC' s assumpt i on of r esponsi bi l i t i es as t he f i scal agent was t o

become ef f ect i ve on Febr uary 15. Wi nsl ow appl i ed f or NMDC' s

Di r ect or of Wor kf or ce Devel opment posi t i on. She was i nt er vi ewed,

al t hough she di d not have a Mast er ' s Degr ee i n t hi s f i el d.

On Febr uar y 17, Cl ar k and Ruby Br adbur y of NMDC

i nt er vi ewed Wi nsl ow and t hr ee ot her appl i cant s f or t he new j ob:

Pat r i ci a Boucher ( t he LWI B' s Execut i ve Di r ect or f or f i ve year s

bef or e Wi nsl ow' s t enur e) , Ar t hur Faucher , and Ryan Pel l et i er .

I nt er vi ew not es i ndi cat e t hat "have to" was wr i t t en next t o

Faucher ' s and Wi nsl ow' s names, and " i nt ervi ew but no" was wr i t t en

-12-


13/21

next t o Boucher ' s name. Ul t i mat el y, NMDC hi r ed Pel l et i er , who was

al so an NMDC boar d member . NMDC' s st at ed r easons f or hi r i ng

Pel l et i er wer e that he (1) had a Mast er ' s Degr ee i n Publ i c

Admi ni st r at i on; ( 2) had el even years of management exper i ence i n

l ocal gover nment ; ( 3) ser ved i n ot her posi t i ons on var i ous st at e

and l ocal boar ds and commi t t ees; ( 4) had busi ness cont act s i n t he

area; and ( 5) possessed an underst andi ng of t he WI A mi ss i on.

Wi nsl ow was not i f i ed by a l et t er dat ed Febr uar y 22, 2010

t hat she di d not get t he j ob. She f i l ed t hi s MWPA act i on on May

26, 2010, or i gi nal l y sui ng both Ar oost ook Count y and NMDC f or

vi ol at i ng t he whi st l ebl ower l aw. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed NMDC' s

mot i on f or summar y j udgment on Februar y 15, 2013. 4 Wi nsl ow t i mel y

appeal ed; she has appar ent l y resol ved her di sput e wi t h Ar oost ook

and onl y her whi st l ebl ower cl ai ms agai nst NMDC r emai n.

I I .

A. St andar d of Revi ew

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s grant of summary j udgment de

novo. Font nez- Nez v. J anssen Or t ho LLC, 447 F. 3d 50, 54 ( 1st

Ci r . 2006) . We have car ef ul l y vi ewed t he ent i r e r ecor d " i n t he

l i ght most hospi t abl e t o t he part y opposi ng summary j udgment ,

4 I n t he di st r i ct cour t , Wi nsl ow al so br ought a cl ai m t hatNMDC r ef used t o empl oy her because of her physi cal di sabi l i t i es i nvi ol at i on of t he Amer i cans wi t h Di sabi l i t i es Act ( ADA) , 42 U. S. C. 12101 et seq. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summary j udgment i nf avor of NMDC on t hat cl ai m, and Wi nsl ow does not appeal t hatpor t i on of t he di str i ct cour t ' s deci s i on.

-13-


14/21

i ndul gi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n t hat par t y' s f avor . " Suar ez

v. Puebl o I nt ' l , I nc. , 229 F. 3d 49, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng

Gr i ggs- Ryan v. Smi t h, 904 F. 2d 112, 115 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on mark omi t t ed) .

B. Mai ne Whi st l ebl ower s' Pr ot ect i on Act

As we under st and i t , Wi nsl ow' s st at e whi st l ebl ower cl ai m

agai nst NMDC i s t hat , but f or her "whi st l ebl owi ng" about t he

vi ol at i on of f eder al l aw i nher ent i n Ar oost ook Count y bei ng her

empl oyer absent a separate f i scal agent agr eement , NMDC ( a separate

ent i t y) woul d have hi r ed her i n i t s posi t i on of "Di r ect or of

Workf orce Devel opment . "

The MWPA st at es, i n r el evant par t :

No empl oyer may di scharge, t hr eat en, orot her wi se di scr i mi nat e agai nst an empl oyeer egardi ng t he empl oyee' s compensat i on, t erms,condi t i ons, l ocat i on or pr i vi l eges ofempl oyment because . . . [ t ] he empl oyee,acti ng i n good f ai t h, . . . r epor t s or al l y ori n wr i t i ng t o t he empl oyer or a publ i c bodywhat t he empl oyee has r easonabl e cause t obel i eve i s a vi ol at i on of a l aw or r ul eadopt ed under t he l aws of . . . t he Uni t edSt at es.

Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 26, 833( 1) ( A) . The Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t of

Mai ne has hel d t hat t hi s subsect i on, when r ead al ongsi de t he r est

of sect i on 833, "unambi guousl y l i mi t [ s] t he pr ot ect i on af f or ded by

t he [ M] WPA t o ( 1) empl oyees ( 2) who r epor t t o an empl oyer 5 ( 3)

5 Ther e i s no i ndi vi dual super vi sor l i abi l i t y under t he MWPA.See Fuhr mann v. St apl es Of f i ce Super st or e E. , I nc. , 58 A. 3d 1083,1098 ( Me. 2012) .

-14-


15/21

about a vi ol at i on ( 4) commi t t ed or pr act i ced by that empl oyer . "

Cost ai n v. Sunbur y Pr i mary Care, P. A. , 954 A. 2d 1051, 1054 ( Me.

2008) . 6

The MWPA embodi es Mai ne' s l ar ger "st at utor y publ i c pol i cy

agai nst di schar ge i n r et al i at i on f or r epor t i ng i l l egal acts, a

r i ght t o t he di schar ged empl oyee, and a r emedi al scheme t o

vi ndi cat e t hat r i ght . " Fuhr mann v. St apl es Of f i ce Super st or e E. ,

I nc. , 58 A. 3d 1083, 1097 ( Me. 2012) ( quot i ng Bar d v. Bat h I r on

Wor ks Cor p. , 590 A. 2d 152, 156 ( Me. 1991) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) .

To prevai l on a cl ai m of whi st l ebl ower di scr i mi nat i on

under t he MWPA, a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat she "engaged i n act i vi t y

prot ect ed by t he [ M] WPA, she exper i enced an adverse empl oyment

act i on, and a causal connect i on exi st s bet ween t he pr ot ect ed

act i vi t y and t he adver se act i on. " Fuhr mann, 58 A. 3d at 1090. Par t

of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s bur den of demonst r at i ng t hat her act i vi t y was

pr ot ect ed i s t o show t hat t he pl ai nt i f f and def endant have a

r el at i onshi p t hat f al l s wi t hi n t he ambi t of t he MWPA.

The par t i es have not f ocused on whet her NMDC, as opposed

t o Ar oost ook Count y, was ever Wi nsl ow' s " empl oyer , " or whether her

6 The MWPA does not pr ovi de whi st l ebl owers wi t h a di r ect causeof act i on. The Mai ne Human Ri ght s Act ( MHRA) pr ovi des a r i ght ofact i on t o i ndi vi dual s "who have been subj ect t o unl awf uldi scr i mi nat i on, i ncl udi ng whi st l ebl ower s who have suf f er edr et al i at or y di schar ge or ot her adver se empl oyment act i ons. "Cost ai n, 954 A. 2d at 1053 ( ci t i ng Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 5, 4572( 1) ( A) ) .

-15-


16/21

compl ai nt s wer e about vi ol at i ons whi ch wer e commi t t ed or pr act i ced

by NMDC. At or al ar gument , Wi nsl ow cont ended t hat NMDC had an

obl i gat i on t o hi r e her when i t t ook over as t he f i scal agent .

Ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o suppor t her cont ent i on t hat

NMDC had any such obl i gat i on. And gi ven t he Depar t ment of Labor ' s

ul t i mate appr oval of t he NMDC agr eement , i ncl udi ng t he j ob

descr i pt i on f or t he Di r ect or of Wor kf or ce Devel opment , t her e can be

no cl ai m t hat NMDC vi ol at ed f eder al l aw i n i t s deci si on t o hi r e a

new person f or t he new posi t i on.

By i t s t er ms, t he MWPA onl y pr ohi bi t s cer t ai n act i ons

t aken by an "empl oyer . " Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 26, 833( 1) ; see

Cost ai n, 954 A. 2d at 1054 ( r equi r i ng t hat i n or der t o be pr ot ect ed

by the MWPA, a whi st l ebl ower ' s r epor t must be made t o an empl oyer

about a vi ol at i on t hat was commi t t ed by t hat empl oyer) . The

assumpt i on of f i scal agent r esponsi bi l i t i es by NMDC r equi r ed a new

cont r act bet ween t he LWI B and NMDC whi ch became ef f ect i ve on

Febr uary 15, 2010, af t er Wi nsl ow was t ermi nated by Ar oost ook

County. We expr ess doubt t hat NMDC ever was Wi nsl ow' s empl oyer

wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he MWPA.

I n t he absence of any ar t i cul at i on by Wi nsl ow, we assume,

as t he di st r i ct cour t di d, t hat Wi nsl ow' s cl ai m agai nst NMDC i s

i nst ead based on a f ai l ur e t o hi r e an appl i cant t heor y. That cl ai m

woul d ar i se under 4572( 1) ( A) of t he Mai ne Human Ri ght s Act

( MHRA) , whi ch pr ohi bi t s empl oyer s f r om" f ai l [ i ng] . . . t o hi r e" an

-16-


17/21

"appl i cant f or empl oyment . . . because of pr evi ous act i ons t aken

by t he appl i cant t hat ar e pr otected" under t he MWPA. Me. Rev.

St at . t i t . 5, 4572( 1) ( A) .

We af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng Wi nsl ow di d not

engage i n whi st l ebl ower conduct and so has no cl ai m agai nst NMDC

under ei t her sect i on.

We st ar t wi t h t he assumpt i on, i n Wi nsl ow' s f avor , t hat

t he f eder al moni t or ' s concl usi on t hat Ar oost ook coul d not be

Wi nsl ow' s empl oyer unl ess i t had a separate f i scal agent agr eement

was a "vi ol at i on of a l aw or r ul e" wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he MWPA,

commi t t ed by her empl oyer ( Ar oost ook Count y) . Nonethel ess, t he

combi nat i on of sever al f act or s f r om t he undi sput ed f act s r equi r e

t he concl usi on that she was not a whi st l ebl ower under Mai ne l aw.

I t was t he f eder al moni t or s who uncover ed t he "vi ol at i on"

of t he r egul at i ons, and not Wi nsl ow. They al so event ual l y

publ i shed a f or mal r epor t of t hei r f i ndi ngs. I t was t he moni t or s

who i ni t i al l y r epor t ed t he f i ndi ngs t o Beaul i eu; 7 Wi nsl ow di d not

7 I n Wi nsl ow' s br i ef , she asser t s t hat she was t he one whour ged Theber ge t o di scl ose t he f i ndi ngs of t he moni t or i ng vi si t t oBeaul i eu. The di st r i ct cour t expl i ci t l y r ef used t o consi der t hi sasser t i on, as i t had pr evi ousl y gr ant ed NMDC' s mot i on t o st r i ke ont he gr ounds t hat t he st at ement was cont r ar y t o Wi nsl ow' s pr evi ousdeposi t i on t est i mony. Wi nsl ow ar gues t hi s excl usi on was er r or ;

NMDC di sput es Wi nsl ow' s cont i nued r el i ance on t hi s asser t i on,ar gui ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse i t s di scret i on i ndecl i ni ng t o consi der t he st at ement . See Poul i s- Mi not t v. Smi t h,388 F. 3d 354, 357 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "We wi l l r ever se t he di st r i ctcour t ' s evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs onl y wher e t her e i s an abuse ofdi scret i on. ") ; see al so Cl evel and v. Pol i cy Mgmt . Sys. Cor p. , 526U. S. 795, 806- 07 ( 1999) ( hol di ng t hat a "par t y cannot cr eat e a

-17-


18/21

do so. The f eder al moni t or s met pr ompt l y wi t h Beaul i eu t o not i f y

hi mdi r ect l y of t he "vi ol at i on" and t he need f or cor r ect i ve act i on,

and i t was Beaul i eu who t ook act i on t o cor r ect t he pr obl em. Even

assumi ng an MWPA pl ai nt i f f need not be t he one t o f i nd t he or i gi nal

vi ol at i on or even t he f i r st t o r epor t i t t o t he empl oyer i n ot her

ci r cumst ances, 8 t hat does not hel p Wi nsl ow. Wi nsl ow was not even

t he one who publ i shed t he r esul t s of t he moni t or i ng vi si t .

Fur t her , i t was Beaul i eu who di r ect ed Wi nsl ow t o

di st r i but e t he i nt er vi ew not es t o LWI B Chai r man McCr um and t o

Gar dner and Four ni er , t he CLEOs of t he LWI B. Onl y days l at er , on

December 2, t he Ar oost ook Count y Commi ss i oners di scussed t he

pr obl em i n a publ i c sessi on, at Beaul i eu' s i nsi st ence. Pl ai nl y,

genui ne i ssue of f act suf f i ci ent t o sur vi ve summar y j udgment si mpl yby cont r adi ct i ng hi s or her own pr evi ous swor n st at ement . . .wi t hout expl ai ni ng t he cont r adi ct i on or at t empt i ng t o r esol ve t hedi spar i t y") . Wi nsl ow mer el y di sagr ees wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

hol di ng at l engt h and pr esent s no reasoned argument t hat t hedi st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n t hi s i nst ance. We wi l l notdi st ur b t he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on. However , even i f wewer e t o accept Wi nsl ow' s asser t i on on t hi s poi nt , i t woul d notchange our under l yi ng anal ysi s.

8 To t he extent t hat Wi nsl ow r el i es on Par ks v. Ci t y ofBr ewer , 56 F. Supp. 2d 89 ( D. Me. 1999) , i n suppor t of her cl ai mt hat t he MWPA pr otect s r eport s even where t he i nf ormat i on i n t her epor t i s known and r epor t ed on by ot her s, t hat r el i ance i sunavai l i ng. I n Par ks, t he cour t deni ed t he def endant ' s mot i on f orsummar y j udgment on an MWPA cl ai m even where i t acknowl edged t hat

t he pl ai nt i f f was t he second per son t o r ai se t he i ssue of t her el evant vi ol at i on. I d. at 103. However i n t hat case, t he f i r st" r epor t " of t he vi ol at i on was i n t he f or m of anot her empl oyeeseeki ng appr oval f r omt he def endant Br ewer Ci t y Counci l f or act i onst hat woul d have vi ol at ed a l ocal or di nance; i t was not a r epor t ofwr ongdoi ng f or t he pur pose of cor r ect i ng t he pr obl em. I d. Thef act s her e ar e pl ai nl y di st i ngui shabl e.

-18-


19/21

t her e was no suppr essi on by Beaul i eu or Ar oost ook of t he exi st ence

of a vi ol at i on.

Fr om t he undi sput ed f act s i t i s cl ear Beaul i eu and

Ar oost ook Count y wer e not t r yi ng t o bur y t he pr obl em of t he

vi ol at i on r epor t ed t o Beaul i eu by the f eder al moni t or s but t o

acknowl edge i t and deal wi t h i t . The same i s t r ue of t he Chai r man

of t he LWI B and t he t wo LWI B CLEOs, who had t he aut hor i t y t o choose

t he next f i scal agent and who wer e i nvol ved i n bot h st r uct ur i ng t he

agr eement wi t h NMDC and obtai ni ng approval of t he new

or gani zat i onal st r uct ur e.

Wi nsl ow makes t he cl ai m, pl ai nl y ref ut ed by the r ecor d,

t hat t he LWI B woul d not have known of t he vi ol at i on but f or her

r epor t i ng i t t o t hem. I t was Beaul i eu who r epor t ed t he i nf or mat i on

t o the l eader shi p of t he LWI B, par t i cul ar l y t hose who hel d t he

r esponsi bi l i t y to pi ck a new f i scal agent , and i t was Beaul i eu who

ur ged a repor t t o the f ul l Boar d ( al t hough some ot her member s, l i ke

Cl ar k, obvi ousl y wer e al r eady awar e) .

To t he ext ent Wi nsl ow communi cat ed i nf or mat i on, she di d

so as par t of her j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es, ei t her under di r ect

i nst r uct i ons f r om Beaul i eu, or as t o t he "Oppor t uni t y" emai l

because she t hought i t was among her r esponsi bi l i t i es t o do so.

Though t her e may be except i ons, t he usual r ul e i n Mai ne

i s t hat a pl ai nt i f f ' s repor t s ar e not whi st l ebl owi ng i f i t i s par t

of hi s or her j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es t o make such r epor t s,

-19-


20/21

par t i cul ar l y when i nst r uct ed t o do so by a super i or . See, e. g. ,

Capal bo v. Kr i s- way Tr uck Leasi ng, I nc. , 821 F. Supp. 2d 397, 419

( D. Me. 2011) ( gr ant i ng summary j udgment i n f avor of def endant

wher e pl ai nt i f f ' s MWPA cl ai m was based on repor t s he made at t he

di r ect i on of hi s empl oyer ) . That i s al so t r ue el sewher e. See,

e. g. , Ki dwel l v. Sybar i t i c, I nc. , 784 N. W. 2d 220, 231 ( Mi nn. 2010)

( st at i ng t hat when a company' s i n- house counsel advi ses t he company

on compl i ance i ssues, " t he l awyer i s not sendi ng a r epor t f or t he

pur pose of exposi ng an i l l egal i t y and t he l awyer i s not bl owi ng t he

whi st l e") ; Wi l l i s v. Dep' t of Agr i c. , 141 F. 3d 1139, 1144 ( Fed.

Ci r . 1998) ( "I n r epor t i ng some of t he [ ] [ f ar ms t hat pl ai nt i f f

moni t or ed] as bei ng out of compl i ance, [ pl ai nt i f f ] di d no mor e t han

car r y out hi s r equi r ed ever yday j ob r esponsi bi l i t i es . . . and

[ t hat ] cannot i t sel f const i t ut e a pr ot ect ed di scl osur e under t he

[ f eder al ] WPA. " ) . Si mi l ar l y, i n t he Fai r Labor St andar ds Act

cont ext , we have hel d t hat an empl oyee who report s vi ol at i ons of

l aws or ot her r equi r ement s as par t of hi s j ob i s not engagi ng i n

pr ot ected act i vi t y f or t he pur poses of an ant i - r et al i at i on

pr ovi si on. Cl audi o- Got ay v. Bect on Di cki nson Car i be, Lt d. , 375

F. 3d 99, 102- 03 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . We see no r eason t o depar t f r om

t hat r at i onal e her e.

Fr omt he t i me the vi ol at i on was uncover ed by t he f eder al

moni t ors unt i l t he f i nal management and servi ces agr eement was

si gned wi t h NMDC, Wi nsl ow' s super i ors- - at both t he LWI B and

-20-


21/21

Ar oost ook Count y- - were engaged i n an ef f ort t o br i ng about

compl i ance wi t h t he WI A. I n spi t e of Wi nsl ow' s pr ot est at i ons t o

t he cont r ar y, t he f act s ar e cl ear : she was onl y one of sever al

peopl e who t r ansmi t t ed r esul t s of t he f eder al moni t or i ng vi si t , and

she di d so l ar gel y at Beaul i eu' s di r ect i on. Wi nsl ow di d not

"actual l y bl ow[ ] t he pr over bi al whi st l e, " Tr i pp v. Col e, No. Ci v.

03- 289- PS, 2004 WL 2185840, at *4 ( D. Me. Sept . 24, 2004) , on any

vi ol at i ons of l aw.

I I I .

We af f i r m ent r y of summary j udgment . Cost s ar e awarded

t o NMDC.

-21-

Documents

Winslow v. Aroostook County, 1st Cir. (2013)