Daniel LePage v. Bath Iron Works Corp. et al.

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed summary judgment for Bath Iron Works Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. in Daniel LePage’s claims under the Maine Human Rights Act and Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act. The court held that the disability-discrimination claim was untimely because the limitations period began with the employer’s April 30, 2002 firearm-qualification decision, and that the alleged statements by a human-resources executive did not constitute an actionable adverse employment threat under the whistleblower statute.

Holdings

1. BIW's April 30, 2002, decision disqualifying LePage from carrying a firearm was a discrete discriminatory act that provided unambiguous and authoritative notice of the alleged discrimination. The later reconsideration process and continuing effects did not create a continuing violation or restart the limitations periods; LePage's MHRA claims were therefore untimely.
2. Although the MWPA's prohibition expressly includes threats concerning an employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment, the statements attributed to BIW's human-resources executive did not constitute an actionable threat or other adverse employment action on the summary-judgment record. LePage therefore failed to establish the adverse-action element of his MWPA claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether BIW's April 30, 2002, decision not to qualify LePage to carry a firearm was a discrete discriminatory act that commenced the MHRA limitations periods, or instead part of a continuing violation.
2. Whether statements made by BIW's human-resources executive after LePage questioned the firearm-qualification decision constituted an adverse employment action under the Maine Whistleblowers' Protection Act.

Disposition

affirmed