Quintal v. City of Hallowell, 2008 ME 155

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed summary judgment for the City of Hallowell and its city manager in an employee's challenge to his termination. The court held that the collective bargaining agreement's binding-arbitration procedure precluded the employee from pursuing a duplicative Rule 80B appeal, and rejected his due process, First Amendment, Freedom of Access Act, and related claims. The court also concluded that the city manager was immune from personal liability under the Maine Tort Claims Act.

Holdings

1. A public employee who voluntarily invokes and participates in a collective-bargaining agreement's binding-arbitration procedure for a termination may not relitigate the termination issues through a Rule 80B appeal when the arbitration provision controls over conflicting municipal statutory or charter authority.
2. Quintal received constitutionally adequate due process because he received notice of the proposed termination and an opportunity to be heard before the termination decision.
3. Quintal's memorandum was not protected by the First Amendment because, although it was not made pursuant to his official duties, it did not address a matter of public concern and misleadingly appeared to be an official City investigation.
4. The Personnel Committee complied with 1 M.R.S. § 407(2) by making a written decision containing specific findings of fact and conclusions; the statute did not require a separate vote on each reason for termination.
5. Rhodes was absolutely immune from personal civil liability because his actions in reprimanding Quintal and recommending termination were discretionary functions performed within the scope of his governmental authority.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Quintal could pursue a Rule 80B appeal after voluntarily invoking and participating in the collective bargaining agreement's grievance and binding-arbitration procedure.
2. Whether the grievance and termination procedures denied Quintal due process.
3. Whether Quintal's memorandum constituted protected speech under the First Amendment.
4. Whether the Personnel Committee violated the Maine Freedom of Access Act by failing to make sufficient written findings or by failing to vote separately on each reason for termination.
5. Whether James Rhodes was immune from Quintal's claims under the Maine Tort Claims Act.

Disposition

affirmed