Articles Posted in Whistleblower protection

On April 11, 2011, the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) found that the moving and storage company Parker K. Bailey & Sons, Inc. of Waterville fired Rodney Witham because he blew the whistle on the company’s illegal deductions from employees’ pay. According to Mr. Witham and another witness, he complained to the company about these illegal deductions and, when the company did not change its practices, he complained to the Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). In response to Mr. Witham’s complaint, MDOL investigated Parker K. Bailey & Sons and found that it had, in fact, illegally deducted money from employees’ paychecks. A couple months later, Parker K. Bailey & Sons terminated Mr. Witham claiming that it had to eliminate his truck driver position due to financial considerations.

In finding against the company, the MHRC found it noteworthy that Parker K. Bailey & Sons advertised that it was looking to hire new truck drivers shortly after it terminated Mr. Witham. According to a witness, the General Manager said that the company was looking for a driver to replace Mr. Witham. This evidence contradicted Parker K. Bailey & Sons’ claim that it eliminated Mr. Witham’s position. Furthermore, a secretary for the company told a witness after Mr. Witham contacted MDOL that Mr. Witham should “watch himself” because management was looking for a reason to fire him.

Under Maine’s Whistleblower Protection Act, an employer may not retaliate against an employee because he complains about the employer’s unlawful activity. If you believe your employer has discriminated against you because you complained about its unlawful activity, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to discuss your rights.

On February 4, 2011, Judge Woodcock, of the U.S. District Court in Bangor, ruled that a jury could reasonably find that Correctional Medical Services, Inc. fired a whistleblower named Thomas Halkett because he blew the whistle on Correctional Medical Services’ (CMS) allegedly unlawful activity.

CMS provides health care to prison inmates across the country. It is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Mr. Halkett is a licensed clinical professional counselor. In connection with his employment at CMS, he provided mental health care to inmates from Downeast Correctional Facility in Machiasport, Maine.

Throughout the course of his employment, Mr. Halkett repeatedly complained about what, he believed to be, illegal breaches of confidentiality laws. For instance, he complained that some nurses illegally removed documents from the medical file of an inmate. He alleged that these nurses removed the documents in order to defend themselves against a complaint filed with the Maine Board of Nursing. Judge Woodcock held that there was enough evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that CMS fired Mr. Halkett because of his opposition to these illegal activities. CMS denies these allegations. As such, a jury will likely have to decide what actually happened.

On January 19, 2011, Judge Woodcock, of the U.S. District Court in Bangor, ruled that a jury could reasonably find that Crisis & Counseling Centers, Inc. fired a whistleblower named Ellen Gammon because she blew the whistle on Crisis & Counseling’s allegedly illegal and unsafe business practices.

Crisis & Counseling provides counseling services, crisis interventions, substance abuse counseling, and related educational services for clients and families at its residential and outpatient crisis facilities. Ms. Gammon worked for Crisis & Counseling as a crisis worker in its mobile crisis unit. The mobile crisis unit provided 24-hour telephone and walk-in counseling services as well as off-site mental health assessments and evaluations, which often occurred in clients’ homes.

Ms. Gammon claims that she opposed Crisis & Counseling’s fraudulent practice of billing clients for work it did not do. She also claims that she opposed unsafe practices such as ignoring safety concerns about certain clients. Judge Woodcock held that there was enough evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that Crisis & Counseling fired Ms. Gammon because of her opposition to these, and other, illegal and/or unsafe activities. Crisis & Counseling denies these allegations. As such, a jury will likely have to decide what actually happened.

Nurses at Eastern Maine Medical Center (“EMMC”) went on strike November 22, 2010 because they and EMMC have not reached agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement. The nurses’ union and hospital management cannot reach agreement on the issue of staffing levels. The nurses believe that EMMC has dangerously cut back on staffing levels, putting patients’ safety at risk.
“They cut back the total number of nurses, then they cut back the hours,” said nurse Bobbi Coombs, who has worked at EMMC for 23 years. “It is getting harder and harder to provide the care we want to give.”

While these nurses have chosen collective action to oppose what they believe are threats to patient safety, other nurses oppose threats to patient safety on their own. If you are a nurse and your employer retaliates against you because you expressed concerns about patient safety, either through collective action or on your own, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn about your rights.

Fred Cyr, the former chief operator of Gardiner’s waste-water treatment plant, claims that the city forced him out of his job because he complained about health and safety issues at the plant. More specifically, he claims that he complained about vandalism which, in some instances, caused raw sewage to leak out into the Kennebec River. According to Mr. Cyr, the Director of the city’s Wastewater and Public Works Department created a hostile work environment and took adverse actions against him because of his complaints. The city maintains that Mr. Cyr’s whistleblower claim is “baseless.”

Mr. Cyr’s whistleblower claim is currently pending with the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC). The MHRC is the state agency charged with enforcing Maine’s Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). The MHRC typically conducts an investigation before it decides whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that an employer has violated the MWPA. The MHRC has not completed its investigation in this case yet.

On May 24, 2010, a Cumberland County Superior Court jury awarded Michael Afthim $1,015,000 in damages in connection with Mr. Afthim’s lawsuit against his former employer, Alternative Labor Resources (“ALR”) for violating Mr. Afthim’s rights under the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act and defamation.

Mr. Afthim was a superintendent employed by ALR. Mr. Afthim became concerned about a number of safety issues in the warehouse that he ran including the lack of ventilation, the company’s decision to use cheaper cotton gloves instead of splinter resistant leather gloves, and the insufficient staffing on the second shift. Mr. Afthim noted that the ventilation was so poor in the warehouse that his employees were inhaling significant amounts of dust and dirt. Mr. Afthim made multiple reports and complaints to ALR’s management about the ventilation issue but ALR did nothing. Mr. Afthim also noted that the company’s switch to cotton gloves from leather gloves was leading to significant splinters for his employees who spent their days constructing and repairing wooden pallets. Mr. Afthim also brought this concern to ALR without an adequate response. Mr. Afthim then noticed that due to understaffing that the workers on the second shift were rushing to keep up with their duties and he became very concerned that this would inevitably lead to a serious injury such as a fall or an accident with the fork lift. Once again, Mr. Afthim brought his concerns to ALR management and they expressed frustration with him for his complaints. ALR then fired Mr. Afthim for his complaints.

ALR subsequently lied about its reasons for terminating Mr. Afthim’s employment and told the Department of Labor and the Maine Human Rights Commission that Mr. Afthim had been terminated for poor performance. Also, Mr. Afthim was forced to disclose ALR’s false explanation for his termination to potential employers who would routinely ask why he had been terminated from his last place of employment. As a result Mr. Afthim suffered significant lost wages.

There are federal and state laws that protect truck drivers in Maine who refuse to operate illegally. For instance, if you have refused to drive longer than the DOT allows, refused to doctor your logbook, refused to drive an unsafe truck, or complained about violations of DOT regulations, the law prohibits your employer from retaliating against you. (Incidentally, that was not an exhaustive list of illegal reasons for an employer to retaliate against you, just some examples.) The federal law that protects you is the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). In Maine, the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) also protects you.

While it is illegal for employers to retaliate against truck drivers who refuse to violate the law, or complain about violations of the law, it is sometimes hard to prove such retaliation took place. It is even harder to prove retaliation took place if you do not have a good lawyer on your side. So, if you believe that your employer is going to retaliate against you, or has already retaliated against you, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer who is knowledgeable about the STAA and Maine’s WPA.

The Maine Supreme Court issued its decision in a whistleblower case, Maine Human Rights Commission et al. v. Saddleback, Inc. et al., on July 16, 2009. The Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) brought this case against Saddleback claiming that Saddleback had violated Maine’s Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA). The MWPA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees when they report unsafe or unlawful activities. The case centered around the termination of Robert Duggan, Jr.’s employment. (For those who are not from Maine, Saddleback is a ski area in central Maine.)

The relevant facts of the case, according to the Superior Court, were as follows:

Saddleback contracted with Mr. Duggan’s employer, Integrity Electrical Installation & Service, Inc. (Integrity), to work on the installation of some snowmaking equipment. As an employee of Integrity, Mr. Duggan worked on this project as an electrician and foreman. During the course of his work, Mr. Duggan observed Saddleback employees working in an unlawful and unsafe manner. He observed Saddleback employees drinking on the job. They were performing electrical work with high voltage electrical lines even though they did not have the proper licenses to do that kind of work. On one occasion, Mr. Duggan witnessed Saddleback employees backfilling boulders and debris on top of high voltage lines in violation of the Electrical Code.