United States District Court Judge Singal ruled recently that individual liability is not available under the Maine Human Rights Act. Gough v. Eastern Maine Development Corp., 172 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D. Me. 2001).  Although Maine’s highest court has yet to rule on this specific issue, this opinion provides good news for employers and their supervisory employees who have been individually named in discrimination lawsuits filed by employees or former employees.

Plaintiff Alberta Gough filed a complaint in federal court alleging that her former employer, Eastern Maine Development Corporation (“EMDC”), and her former supervisor discriminated against her on the basis of depression and other related impairments.  Gough’s Complaint alleged counts against EDMC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Maine Human Rights Act.  Her Complaint also included a single count alleging a claim under the Maine Human Rights Act count against her former supervisor individually.  Gough alleged that she had requested reasonable accommodation for her depression and other impairments in the form of timely and direct supervisor feedback on her work performance.  She alleged that this would help her keep a “positive attitude and perform her work duties effectively.” Id. at 222.  Gough asserted that initially her former supervisor provided the requested supervision and feedback, but it eventually ceased.  She also asserted that the transfer of her duties to another employee exacerbated her condition.  Her work performance declined; she was placed on probation and eventually terminated.
Gough’s former supervisor moved to dismiss the state law discrimination count against him on the basis that the Maine Human Rights Act did not subject supervisors to individual liability.  Maine’s discrimination law prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual for mental or physical disabilities. 5 M.R.S.A. § 4572(1)(A).  In his comprehensive opinion, Judge Singal addressed the issue of whether the phrase “any person acting in the interest of any employer, directly or indirectly” contained in the Maine Human Rights Act’s definition of “employer,” 5 M.R.S.A. § 4553(4), subjects an employer’s agent to individual liability.
Judge Singal’s opinion recognized that Maine looks to federal precedent to provide guidance in the interpretation and construction of Maine’s discrimination law.  The Court then concluded that every federal Court of Appeals, other than the First Circuit, has held that federal law does not subject an employer’s agents to individual liability. 172 F. Supp. 2d at 224-25.  Citing Caldwell v. Federal Express Corp., 908 F.Supp. 29, 36 (D. Me. 1995) and Quiron v L.N. Violette Co., Inc., 897 F.Supp. 18, 20 (D. Me. 1995), Judge Singal also reasoned that the United States District Court for the District of Maine has already predicted that the Maine Law Court would not recognize individual liability under the Maine Human Rights Act.  Judge Singal firmly closed the door on the issue by stating, “[t]he Court has already asked and answered the question of how the Law Court would rule on the issue of state law that [the Defendant] raises here.  It is unnecessary to construe the ‘any person’ clause again.” Gough, 172 F. Supp. 2d at 225.

Finally, and importantly, Judge Singal refused to certify the issue to Maine’s Law Court for determination.  He ruled that federal case law clearly answers the issue and Maine’s state law instructs the Court to follow federal precedent in interpreting the Maine Human Rights Act.  The Court accordingly dismissed the individual liability count against Gough’s former supervisor.

The Maine Human Rights Condition, prior to the Gough decision, interpreted the Maine Human Rights Act to allow individual claims against supervisors for employment discrimination.  In light of the Gough decision, Preti Flaherty contacted counsel for the Maine Human Rights Commission regarding its policy of continuing to recognize individual liability claims at the administrative level.  The Commission informs us that it will continue to recognize these claims until such time as the Law Court rules on the issue.  In conclusion, although the federal courts sitting in Maine will not recognize individual liability claims, employers and their agents must continue to defend these claims before the Maine Human Rights Commission.