Williams V. Island Nursing Home, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF :VIAINE lllJSINESS AND CONS:JMElt COURT I .ocution: Portland Docket No.: 11CD-CV-l3-23 CU¥.!3EH.LAND, -'·' / {VI MIIH ~IVH:bi--1'1-IS ) lJONNA WJLUt\MS, ) ) ) ) PlainTiff, ) ISLAND NlJI<S!Nli HOME, INC, FINDINGS AND ORllEH l'OR ltNTRY ) OF ,TIJDGMENT ) ) Dcfcndal\18. I. INTROlliJCTION On October 16, 20!'1, n Jlanoock Couaty Jury found that the Defendunt, Island t-;ursing Home, tcrmin~tcd Act, hut nwal'ded no Plaitttiff In l'iolation of Mnine's Whis!leblower Protection d~mages, On Decem bel' II, ?.0 14, tile Comt conducted a !tearing on Plaintifr s request for the eqttitablc remedy of rcinstatoment, and for back pay. Plaintiff seeks an ordc,· thM requires Ihe Dcfendanl to employ her~" a Pcrsonnl S11ppon SpecfnU~I. 8efend"111 is nski11g that the Cou11 order tlmt she ile rcim1~1ed to her last-held position RS a per ~icm I Iottsekecping Aide. PriOL" to hearing tlw parlies stipulated that the nmount of hnck P"Y is $1 ,8~3.44.' The Comtltas considered the trinl testimony, the ltial cxhillm, all<l the pa11ies' \Witten nrgmnents, t!w last oJ"whkh were received by the Court on hn\Lat·y 5, 2015, und i~sucs the follo\,ing Findings and 0Hiet for Entry of Judgu\Ct11. 1Plni nt:fr •·oise, "" issue ,,. to whe•!tct tho Defendant hRs waived pretrlo l inter.st. The Cou1t ~Qos nut tl11J lh,,l " waiver occt.rte~. l'rc-tfin: inlo1 c. I of :J.I 6% shall be "'se'led ~gaitl>t this RlL\OliJLt. 1 11. FL'I"DH\'nS Tile evidence submi Ito~ befo1e the jwy c"tnblished that Plnm' 1!f was \he D cF~ndant U ng two \i me pcl'loc1s. w't Th~ employe~ by first was fwm 1\ ug1wt 20, 2005 thrmtgh J1tly 7, 2005 when she rdgncd without giving the requisite notice, She wns re.hir~d on Ap1"il II, 2011 and wmke1l untii May 2, 2011 when she wastcrrninnted. Dmlng hoth IIIIIC pcr'tods she was n per diem housekeep'mg Pmon11l ::iltppm: Speciali~t. ai~c, nlthough ~he h"s nspircd to become a There io no evidence, however, that she ever worked in such a position. Pla'mtiffntakes ~ mtmber ofnrgtmlcntl in her tllings. First, she (he•· supcrvisot·) m~y ~l"gllCo lh~t she harbor some onimosi!y towm·d her ond moke het• work life difficult sho1tld she relllrn to the Hnnsckeeping Dep~rtment." (PI.·~ l'ost-He111·ing Memommllun 7} Pl~intiff~lso m'g\tcs that she WM prollliscd when hired thut she WO\ild be a full-time employee \\·llilln six months. Finally, she argues thRt ohc should be ml\ll'ned to Rposilion that provides her with a mininmm of" 16 bout~ per week. The Com! will address th~ •rguments separately. I. WheriiCJ' llo.Mil.flY .B~'!llkf·!...llelnsM/emen/ to a l'o.1illon ofPe>E?!!JI.i Smwm·t ,l)!f9ia/isr w:J2!fre•· CO!!JJJm•ab/e Posllio!l A fler considering the testimony of the Plai n!iff at tdnl n11c:l nt hearing, ns well a,o tl>e te.\timony of the stah"from the bla11d Ntti'Sing [lome, rhe Court finds that tile !itls fuilcd to prov~ by "prepo11demnec ofeviciel!ce that she WO\IId be treated P!~inliff Willi ho.<tiltty, much !eo:; "extmordinnry nnweonism," •fshe was reinstmed to her Jlreviot\S position tn tile housekeeping c:lepat·lmcn~. f!w·dl!ig v Cwnbm, 413 I', (D. Me. 2007) (11111ended on J'ecnn.l'iderai!OI> on otlwr gro<~mi•). ~10pp. Wh~lc 2d 89, 96 Ihe Plainti~T may 2 li'e chief ndmi•t;<lratot of the ~HICOing h01nc .,, a result of compluints '"~de by l'!ninti ff abom tlwt These £:1cts ~bo set the casu npntl li·om cuscs where co~11 t> h~ve been concemed wit11 rcin;(atittg Sllpc,.viscd by personnel S~i'l'ices, emp'oyec~ (]irccli~ involved in the vwlation. Beclc.<•ilh Inc., 1985 U.S. Dis I. LEX IS I 7000 (fl. D. hosti!ity on ~his 1'~. l' frd 'I Mill : 985}. Given the absence of past record, tile Co\11'1 couoludes IIHttl'eiltstatcment to a positio11 Oll[side of the housekccp;ng dcpa1 tnwnt io not viol~tions In n forme!' position wheo·c they wou]\1 be diJ cctly IICCG<Snry in ordel· to prevent future hostility. Ol' funhe1· cf law. 2. Promise o{Ful/llme F.lilf!loymen/ Pinintifftcslified nt tdnl11ild at the December 20l41•e~ri"g lb~l she had been given a "promise" m· ''expectation" that within six months •he woul\l be working in a fuli·(IIIIC pos"1tirm. (PI." s Post-J'leflr"lllg Memomndmn I.) With respect to dctermininc what hours Plai nWT would be working hml she not been terminated, Lol"ie Morey lim! t~stified <t is possible fm an elnpl oyce who begins as n per diem to end tip working fi.tl1 :ime, ~·····~········''··----·~········~····' statu.~ since 2011 She kotified th"t she lmd otiC employee who started out pel' dictll that ended up workillg 561Wlli'S per pay period, bttt llwt tJanslatcs to 28 bows per week. She "I so Glm-1 fled tltnt there ~re two types of per diem employee,, tho'e tktl sign lip for scheduled h011; o and tiwse :hnt do net, A::d "he testified thn! '!'ICC ?0 11 no houlckeor1ng employees moved ft·om wm king in homckccpl!lg to work i ttg a~ pm•sonal suppol'l speciuiisls. 2005 Sl;~ w~s 1\Jlftble to rc.c<~li whether nny entployee> had 1\lndc that move since ''e S\ibJCCi ivcly c on.;emed ~bo• 1: from events thm took pl~cc IJu"ti Iity from \1s, Stephen•, Lm>ch of th~l seems to stem )'COl'S ~B0 In ~dduion, the event" described do not, when objcclivdy viewed, Jnstify IJer concetn". /Is the Comt understands l'laintifrs cotnplnint ngninst Maty Stephens, on oae occm;ion Ms. Stephens wcl\lto Plaintiff's hume to ta:k to licr nftcr the Plnintiff ')\Iii her ,10b withont notice. Jlowevcr, there is ve1y linle in the t·~eord, ethel' than Pluintiff' .< compluinl thtll Mo. Stephen< knocked loudly on her door, to >\1gge.<t that Ms. Stephens w~s motivnled by ~nyfhing other than. con"cm over why Pln11tt iIf ab1 upliy qnit, >1Lid Ms. Stephen's desire to haw PI~intiff como n~d ition, b~ck 10 work. ln those clai rn" t>rc somewhat at O<lds with Plaintiffs c:<.nbcrnnte abont going back to work at the nmsing home, most recently demonstrated in an unschedtiled visit uwle to the nmsing home sllOJ'!ly ~fter the jury verdict. More fundamentally, the Co1rrt fotlnd the testimony of Lnl'ie Morey ami Mmy Stephens to be po&lli vc!y vi~wed credible~" to how Plaintiff is at tlw mtrsinEiwrne, and as to their belief thnt "he wn11ld be treated faill)' and professionally if she retw·ns to work, inch1ding in the housekeeping dcp~rlmetll. I! is not possible !() know with cerluinty why the jnry fo1md whistleblower &laMe bm awarded no dnm~ges for tlw violation, ~ violMion of M~in~' s ~nd specific~ll)' for the cmotion1•l distress dmmed. J lowcvct', the jury finding "''!l!:CSIS tlmt this case can be dtstinellislwd f,·om otho, s where n Plaintiff has been subject•Y.I to ho,lt ility bused upon race, ellmicity, dioability, or gender, The record bcre is devoid Df evidence tb~t Plaintiff wns trentcd with hosti Iit y OL' Cl'llchy by co·wnrkers or direct supervi.sot·s. The hc~rl. of the l'lnHltJft'.1 claim was tlwt tile nur.1i11g home admini"lration dill not nppropt•iatoly safett<HII'd J' lainliff's con fidenlinl employee infor1nntion, and that she wns terminated by ' Ms Mt~ roy :'u rt!ie1 tcs11 lied llwt wlica J>lai 111 i~Twas reb ired in 20 11 sh~ wor;:ed per d1ei!L nnd w'"' scheduled :'or CVCI)' otllel' weekend rcsLtl:ing in iii hours pco' PHY pe1 iod How ever, sl1e no ted tlmt p0r <licm eEIIployee~ cot•ld pick 11p additi011nl hours, an~ 11 is cle"'' to the Conl'lllmt this w~-' the C!lSe with the Plaintiff_ lixhibit 15 snr,gests that Pl~itltiffworkcd an Ste]lhcm testi fled nwr~ec of21 ho\trs per week, However, th~t reg\ll~t· ~oth Ms. Morey 1md Ms. full OL' :1arl-t'1me posil'lons do occn~ion~lly he come avuilnble, ftnd that per diem employees are t~bl" to apply foi' such po"itions whc" they do Uccome ov .. ilable. However, there wa~ no erodible evidence admitted at tLinl suppo1 tinr, p],intlff' ~ cli1im that ;]te hEld been promised filii-time work within S>X months of hire, Ol' Ihat this w"' the prncti<;c t'or othet' employees nt the nmslng home. The evidence shows th,llhe ho11&ekceping depm1l1tCIIl al iltc dand Nll!'sing ]-lome emp:oys fotll' J'Cgllim· 1101\·pcr <liem aides, two of which tilllc. The evidence ~lso Stlgge~ls ~re filii-time and two part· that them has "ot been m11ch han-ovet' iltlltc'c fiLII "nd parHirne positions ove1' the ye;n s, However, when openings occm they nre advertised illhou~o und Henioriry is given weigh! ;n t;lling the positions. Given thi•, and tile employment poltcies or t(w ~ny of which glli<r~ntee "step" incmEISC,I fol' pay or promotion< employee, it is difnc\11! to sny with ccrlainly how many hums Plaintiff would now he W(ll'ki::g. nut~l ~cr cont•·~cls ~b~ence -~-h~ C<>Htl finds of homs that she 184 ho"'s over ~n npp1oxl<nntely 2J w~s th~ best cvid~"ce in the ,·ccmd on thiN i.<<ue to be the working bef01 c Wrminmion, which Exhibit l S shows was eq;ht·wcek !'eriud, \1Jy 2, 201! lo June 27, 2011, botH'S Th~t comes lo per week 5 '"'d t.i ven tile 'tate u f tlw recmd cvid~L·.cc. The Cour! tiler~ fore conchH:les, b~scd '~rgcly ollltcw '11WlY homs she nvcraged be fmc tcrminntioll, thnt she should rein.•tatcd to hn111' p~r fl ~w·t- week, Howeve1', givcJ> Ihe Plailltiif's IC>Iimony nbmil tmllSJ>Orlfltion prublems, nnO her uncerluinty as to when 'he WO\ild be nvai Iable to rel\11'11 to w01k, the Court orders that she Jn\ISI either elect within 15 dny& of this order, in \Wiling llil'OIIgh ~Otllls~l, to lCI\ll'rl lo work within 15 dnys of the otdet· as n port-lirne eruployee; or she sllnll elect withiu !5 days oflhis order, in wdting thmugh counsel, to retmu to work within 45 1hrys of the order ns a )l~t· dien1 employee for 11p to 20 hom.• per week. Un1lcr eilhct· sccnndo, she slwll Ce paid bnsed upon an avcmec of the howly mtc p~id to ~II other• employees I who since J~mwy Cotlrtuse~ Ihis date I, 2011 have workc~ aH parr time employees in that <lopnrtment, The ~s she was tcrmin~lcd in June 0f20 II, ~nd conclu~es I ' thai if not tenninnlcd wmtld lokelv have been woo king in th"t or anotloer part-tittle position by now, ~nd I at a higher L'ale of pay. Nothin~ re!ttrns ~o itl ileUs order shotlid bo conslnJed as JlrohibilinG the Plaintif!', once Hhe work ilt Ihe hou"ekeeping dcpurtmcnt, from taking steps to be applying for qtr~Hfie~ I fOl', Ol' I ""Y olhcl' avaii"ble position for wlrich she~~ now (jlmliftcd, M tlw !.•lund I Ill. CG;'>ICLUSION The cnll)' ".;J, ltc· hidernc11! slw II be crrtct cd fol' PJalmifC based !l]l011 lhC jmy 11\ltllJt g ill~! she w~s tenn ina~e<l Hl violntinn of ~a'ne' s \Vhi,llel>lo\ver l'rolectLOtl Act. No motJGtJry dn•nagc.' G ~~~ ~wmded, JLL<Igment wit' I ibe e>,~eption of ba>k pay in ',he alllo\1111 nf $J .82.1.44 with ~tc- iniCt'CSI. Pill inl i IT siHill be 1'~-inst~tcd M the Jsland Nut'sing 1Jmne as ~ 1-lonsokcepillfl Aide. She shall wid1in I 5 dnys ofthi~ ordc!' dec[, in writinr. tluo11gh counsel, to begin wmk wit hi 11 45 days of tile OL'dCt' In n part-li 11\C po.<i lion in tile ho'""keeping dcpnrtmenl; or -•lie shnl~ within fifteen (J 5) dny.o of Ihe order elect, in writing through coHn~cl, to begin work within fm·ty-flvc (~.\) droys Dfthb order as a per die<n employee in that dcpmtment for up lo twcnly (20) hours pet' week. She olonll lJo JlLlid nndet• either nltco native ave1·ngc of the hO\idy mtes p~id b~scd upon an to 111l othct' employees who since January I, 20! I have Wot"krd as Jlfll'Hintc employees in tile housekeeping dcpa<·tmenl ~~ the L•lm1d Nonoi ng Home. Plaintiff's co\lnsclmay sub111i: an ~ffidavit of c01m~el fees for consideration by the Cot ill. Defendant's cou11sel shall have i'ourteen (I 4) days after oubmJSllion of tlw affidavit to /i le any objection to the umount W\tght, Pip,inli ff shall hm-e her cost,~. Donna Williams v. Island Nursing Hollie, Inc. I:!CD·CV-13-23 Donna Williams Plaintiff (ot;nsel: Art~n1r Greif, E.,q. 82 Colurnh;a St PO Uox 233';1 Bangor. MJ: 0440~-2339 Island Nursing Home, Inc. Defendant Counsel: Robyn Mdrch, Esq. !l.bigd1i Varga, F.sq. 4 77 Congress St. 11'1' F:oor PO llox 1.5215 Put·t!Jnd, !viE 04112-5215

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.