Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation Dist.
Citation | 332 F.Supp.3d 316 |
Decision Date | 17 August 2018 |
Docket Number | Docket no. 1:17-CV-35-GZS |
Parties | Diane M. CHARETTE, Plaintiff, v. ST. JOHN VALLEY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
John P. Gause, Eastern Maine Law LLC, Bangor, ME, for Plaintiff.
Susan P. Herman, Assistant Attorney General, Kelly L. Morrell, Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, ME, Eric J. Uhl, Littler Mendelson, PC, Portland, ME, for Defendants.
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants St. John Valley Soil and Water Conservation District, Duane Theriault, and Kurt Coulombe (ECF No. 67 ) ("Joint Motion") and a Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant David Potter (ECF No. 68 ) ("Potter's Motion"). After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Joint Motion and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Potter's Motion, for the reasons outlined below.
Generally, a party is entitled to summary judgment if, on the record before the Court, it appears "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). An issue is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A "material fact" is one that has "the potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law." Nereida-Gonzalez v. Tirado-Delgado, 990 F.2d 701, 703 (1st Cir. 1993).
The party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In determining whether this burden is met, the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences in its favor. See Santoni v. Potter, 369 F.3d 594, 598 (1st Cir. 2004).
Once the moving party has made this preliminary showing, the nonmoving party must "produce specific facts, in suitable evidentiary form, to establish the presence of a trialworthy issue." Triangle Trading Co., Inc. v. Robroy Indus., Inc., 200 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1999) ( ); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). "Mere allegations, or conjecture unsupported in the record, are insufficient." Barros-Villahermosa v. United States, 642 F.3d 56, 58 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting Rivera-Marcano v. Normeat Royal Dane Quality A/S, 998 F.2d 34, 37 (1st Cir. 1993) ); see also Wilson v. Moulison N. Corp., 639 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2011) (). "As to any essential factual element of its claim on which the nonmovant would bear the burden of proof at trial, its failure to come forward with sufficient evidence to generate a trialworthy issue warrants summary judgment for the moving party." In re Ralar Distribs., Inc., 4 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 1993). "However, summary judgment is improper when the record is sufficiently open-ended to permit a rational factfinder to resolve a material factual dispute in favor of either side." Morales-Melecio v. United States (Dep't of Health and Human Servs.), 890 F.3d 361, 368 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted).
Having reviewed the record and the statements of material fact in accordance with Local Rule 56, "the Court constructs the following narrative from the undisputed facts as well as the disputed material facts viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant," here, Charette.
Ramsdell v. Huhtamaki, Inc., 992 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D. Me. 2014).1 The St. John Valley Soil and Water Conservation District (the "District") is a state agency created by statute, with the purpose of, among other things, carrying out preventive and control measures with respect to flood prevention and the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water within the district, and of providing information, education, and technical assistance needed to help protect and enhance natural resources and to use them wisely.2 The District occupies space in an office leased by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") in Fort Kent.3
The District is governed by a five-member, volunteer Board of Supervisors, who are either elected or appointed by the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry ("DACF"), and an Associate Supervisor appointed by the Board of Supervisors. During 2015 and 2016, the District's Board of Supervisors consisted of Defendant David Potter, Defendant Duane Theriault, Defendant Kurt Coulombe, John "Gene" Desjardin, Peter Smith, and an Associate Supervisor, Thomas Schneck.4 At all relevant times, Potter was self-employed as the sole employee of his Fort Kent farm. Theriault was self-employed on the farm he owns with his father in St. Agatha. Coulombe was employed as an equipment operator by a contractor in Madawaska. The Board of Supervisors elected Potter as Chair of the Board in March 2014. The Board generally meets on a monthly basis. Board meetings are open to the public.5 Unless otherwise noted, the District had a sole employee, a District Coordinator, during the periods at issue.
(SR 412.)
Charette received a copy of, and read, the District's Personnel Policy and the District Coordinator job description before she started working for the District. Pursuant to the District's Personnel Policy, Charette was an employee at-will, subject to a six-month probationary period that could be extended. Charette worked a flex schedule of thirty-two hours per week, which allowed her to choose the specific hours she worked. Although the Board is responsible for hiring and general long-term supervision of the District Coordinator, the Board Chair is responsible for supervising the District...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tourangeau v. Nappi Distribs.
... ... JOHN ... A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES ... Lesley ... Univ. , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153603, *15 (D. Mass. Aug ... 12, ... Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation ... ...
-
Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd.
...to the following cases: Kvorjak v. State of Maine , 259 F.3d 48, 52-54 (1st Cir. 2001) ; Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation Dist. , 332 F.Supp.3d 316, 361-362 (D. Me. 2018) ; Kezer v. CMMC , 2012 ME 54, ¶¶ 26-27, 40 A.3d 955 ; McBride v. BIC Consumer Products Mfg. Co., In......
- Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland
-
Lozada v. Dejoy
... ... of the position. Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & ... Water ation Dist., 332 F.Supp.3d 316, 359 (D. Me ... ...