Related Content
Professionals
Areas
Employment Law Alert: Lessons Learned from Walsh v. Town of Millinocket
Alert
10.14.2011
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court recently issued an opinion in the case of Mary Walsh v. Town of Millinocket, 2011 ME99, which addresses the issue of when a public employer can be held liable under the anti-discrimination laws where one member of the board, but not the majority, had discriminatory intent and an adverse employment action resulted.
Background on the case: The case involved the Town's former recreation director who complained vehemently to the Town Council, as well as the State, that maintenance on some of the snowmobile trails was improper and unsafe. The company performing the maintenance happened to be owned by one of the Town Councilors. After at least two encounters between the recreation director and this councilor, the Council voted 4-3 to eliminate the recreation director's position and contract with another municipality to perform her duties. The councilor with the self-interest was the deciding vote. The case was tried twice.
Outcome of the case: The first time, the recreation director was awarded $25,000 by a jury; the second time, the recreation director was awarded $30,000 by a different jury. The Court added an additional award of $60,000 in back pay, but declined to order reinstatement or front pay.
The Town appealed to the Law Court on the issue of whether it was necessary for the Plaintiff to prove that the majority of the Council had discriminatory intent, rather than just showing that one member demonstrated a bad motive. The Court held that it was not necessary for the Plaintiff to prove that a majority of the Council harbored a discriminatory motive; it was only necessary to show that the discriminating motivation was a substantial factor or a motivating factor in the elimination of her position.
In effect, the issue the jury decided was whether one member influenced the other members' decision making. In this case, the Court held that because of the councilor's connection to the trail grooming contractor he may have been viewed with significant deference by the other councilors who had a lesser interest in the issue. Because the vote was decided 4 to 3, that councilor was the deciding vote.
Lessons for Employers: The lesson here is that the defense that only one individual made a decision for the wrong reasons and everyone else made a decision for the right reasons will not prevail.
Questions? If you have questions about this case or other employment law issues, contact attorney Stephen Langsdorf at 207.623.5300 or slangsdorf@preti.com.