Handlin v. Broadreach Pub. Relations, LLC

• Decision Date: 06 January 2022
• Docket Number: Docket: Cum-21-90
• Citation: 2022 ME 2,265 A.3d 1008
• Parties: Margaret HANDLIN v. BROADREACH PUBLIC RELATIONS, LLC
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

265 A.3d 1008

2022 ME 2

Margaret HANDLIN

v.BROADREACH PUBLIC RELATIONS, LLC

Docket: Cum-21-90

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: November 4, 2021

Decided: January 6, 2022

Jeffrey Bennett, Esq. (orally), Legal-Ease, LLC, South Portland, for appellant Margaret Handlin

Carol I. Eisenberg, Esq. (orally), Richardson, Whitman, Large & Badger, Portland, for appellee Broadreach Public Relations, LLC

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ.

MEAD, J.

[¶1] Margaret Handlin appeals from a summary judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Kennedy, J. ) in favor of Broadreach Public Relations, LLC, (Broadreach) on Handlin's complaint alleging unlawful discrimination, retaliation, and discharge in violation of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (WPA), 26 M.R.S. §§ 831 - 840 (2021) ; the Maine Human Rights Act, 5 M.R.S. §§ 4551 - 4634 (2020) ;¹ and 26 M.R.S. § 570 (2021), which prohibits discrimination against an employee who reports or participates in an investigation regarding an occupational safety or health hazard. Handlin also appeals from the court's denial of her M.R. Civ. P 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] The following facts are drawn from Broadreach's statement of material facts² and the summary judgment record and are viewed in the light most favorable to Handlin as the nonprevailing party. See Stanley v. Hancock Cnty. Comm'rs, 2004 ME 157, ¶ 13, 864 A.2d 169.

[¶3] Handlin worked as a client manager at Broadreach from March 2018 until January 2019. In her capacity as a client manager, Handlin worked with the AC Hotel Portland Downtown (AC Hotel), a client of Broadreach's. On November 10, 2018, the majority owner and president of Broadreach held a private party at the AC Hotel that was unrelated to the hotel's business relationship with Broadreach. On December 3, 2018, Handlin reported to her co-worker the substance of a conversation she had recently had with her client contact at the AC Hotel. Handlin told her co-worker that her contact criticized Broadreach's president for her conduct at the November 10th party and indicated that she, the contact, did not want to work with the president. At a later deposition, Handlin could not recall the exact words that her contact used nor the exact words that she herself used when reporting these comments to her co-worker. Handlin's report was conveyed by her co-worker to Broadreach's vice president—who was also Handlin's supervisor—and the vice president subsequently conveyed the report to Broadreach's president.

[¶4] Upon hearing the report, the president met with the general manager of the AC Hotel on December 4, 2018. The general manager contradicted Handlin's report and told the president that neither her private party nor her alleged conduct at the party had any relevance to the business relationship between the AC Hotel and Broadreach. In January 2019, the president of Broadreach also met with Handlin's contact, who had been on leave during the president's December meeting with the general manager. The contact assured the president that she had never suggested to Handlin that the president's party or conduct had any relevance to the business relationship between the AC Hotel and Broadreach. Later that month, Handlin was offered a choice between signing a final written warning or a release and separation agreement. Handlin's counsel ultimately informed Broadreach that Handlin would pursue separation.

[¶5] On February 21, 2020, after receiving a "right-to-sue" letter from the Maine Human Rights Commission, 5 M.R.S. § 4612(6), Handlin filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging that after she made the report to her co-worker about Broadreach's president, she was targeted for warnings, counseling, and discipline that culminated in her termination from Broadreach. Handlin alleged that Broadreach was liable for retaliation against her for making a whistleblower complaint (Count 1), and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by the retaliation (Counts 2 and 3).

[¶6] On December 18, 2020, Broadreach moved for a summary judgment on all counts of Handlin's complaint, asserting that Handlin's report to her co-worker did not constitute a protected report pursuant to 26 M.R.S. § 833(1)(A) and, as such, Handlin was not entitled to the protections afforded whistleblowers. Broadreach served its motion for summary judgment and supporting record on Handlin electronically via email to her attorney. See M.R. Civ. P. 5(b). Handlin did not file an opposition to Broadreach's motion for summary judgment. On February 8, 2021, after the deadline for filing an opposition had passed, Handlin moved for an enlargement of the deadline to respond to Broadreach's motion for summary judgment. In her motion, Handlin claimed her "counsel's failure to see the electronic service of [Broadreach's] Motion for Summary Judgment was inadvertent and unintentional" and that "sufficient good cause or excusable neglect exists to permit [Handlin] the opportunity to oppose [Broadreach's motion]."

[¶7] On February 9, 2021, the court granted Broadreach a summary judgment on all counts of Handlin's complaint, and on February 18, 2021, the court denied Handlin's motion to enlarge her response deadline. Handlin timely filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 60(b). While awaiting the court's decision on her motion, Handlin filed a notice of appeal from the court's February 9 order granting summary judgment to Broadreach with respect to Count 1 of her complaint. See M.R. App. P. 2A, 2B(c)(1). The court denied Handlin's motion for relief from judgment on March 17, 2021. Handlin then filed a second notice of appeal, appealing from the denial of her motion for relief from judgment, and we consolidated her appeals. See M.R. App. P. 2A, 2B(c)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment

[¶8] "We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and any inferences that may be drawn from them in the light most favorable to the nonprevailing party to determine if the statements of material facts and referenced record evidence generate a genuine issue of material fact." Cookson v. Brewer Sch. Dep't , 2009 ME 57, ¶ 11, 974 A.2d 276. "An issue is genuine if there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute to require a choice between the differing versions; an issue is material if it could potentially affect the outcome of the matter." Brown Dev. Corp. v. Hemond , 2008 ME 146, ¶ 10, 956 A.2d 104. Because Handlin did not oppose Broadreach's motion for summary judgment, and because all facts asserted in Broadreach's statement of material facts are supported by appropriate record citations, those facts "must be deemed admitted." Halliday v. Henry , 2015 ME 61, ¶ 8, 116 A.3d 1270.

[¶9] Because there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, we review de novo the trial court's interpretation and application of the relevant statutes, and we evaluate whether Broadreach is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. See Remmes v. Mark Travel Corp. , 2015 ME 63, ¶¶ 18-19, 116 A.3d 466. "Summary judgment is properly granted when the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case for each element of [her] cause of action." Doe v. Williams , 2013 ME 24, ¶ 10, 61 A.3d 718 (quotation marks omitted).

[¶10] Handlin alleges that Broadreach violated the WPA and the Maine Human Rights Act and discriminated against her by targeting her for "warnings, counseling[,] and discipline, culminating in [her] termination" in "retaliation" for her report about Broadreach's president's alleged conduct. See 5 M.R.S. §§ 4551 - 4634 ; 26 M.R.S. §§ 570, 831 - 840.

1. Whistleblower Protection

[¶11] "The WPA protects an employee against retaliation for making a good faith report to the employer of what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of a law." Nadeau v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., LLC , 2021 ME 16, ¶ 26, 247 A.3d 717. The WPA provides, in relevant part:

1. Discrimination prohibited . No employer may discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location or privileges of employment because:

A. The employee, acting in good faith ... reports orally or in writing to the employer ... what the employee has reasonable cause to believe is a violation of a law or rule adopted under the laws of this State, a political subdivision of this State or the United States.

26 M.R.S. § 833(1)(A).³ "The Maine Human Rights Act provides a right of action to employees discharged because of protected activity." Stewart-Dore v. Webber Hosp. Ass'n , 2011 ME 26, ¶ 9, 13 A.3d 773 ; 5 M.R.S. §§ 4572(1)(A), 4621.⁴

[¶12] To prevail on her WPA claim, Handlin must show that "(1) she engaged in activity protected by the WPA; (2) she experienced an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse employment action." Stewart-Dore , 2011 ME 26, ¶ 10, 13 A.3d 773 (alterations and quotation marks omitted); see Costain v. Sunbury Primary Care, P.A. , 2008 ME 142, ¶ 6, 954 A.2d 1051. Therefore, if Handlin's report to her co-worker was not an activity protected by the statute, her entire claim fails.

[¶13] The unopposed and supported facts establish that Handlin's report to her co-worker concerned conduct of a Broadreach employee that occurred during nonwork hours at a private party while the employee was not engaged in work for Broadreach. Even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Handlin and assuming that Handlin did have reasonable cause to believe that the president's conduct at her private party was a violation of a rule or law, Handlin has failed to demonstrate that her report concerned behavior that was in any way associated with her employer—Broadreach. The record presents Handlin's conversation with her co-worker as a gossipy...