PORTLAND — A former corrections officer at Androscoggin County Jail in Auburn appealed to the state’s high court Tuesday on a portion of her lawsuit against the county that was dismissed a year ago by a lower court judge.

Lisa Levesque of Buckfield filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against the county after she had worked at the jail for several years, then resigned in 2009. She claimed in her suit: gender discrimination; constructive discharge or coerced resignation; and retaliation for opposing the proposed transfer to a day shift of a supervising officer who had been accused of sexual harassment and whom Levesque had implicated during an internal investigation by writing a lengthy testimonial statement.

A judge dismissed the first two claims, granting the county’s motion for summary judgment on those counts.

The third claim, retaliation, was the subject of a four-day trial last fall in which the jury sided with the county.

Levesque, through her Saco attorney Guy Loranger appealed the judge’s dismissal of the constructive discharge claim.

Loranger told Maine Supreme Judicial Court justices Tuesday morning that the standard the court should consider is whether “a reasonable person faced with such unpleasant conditions would be compelled to resign” from her job, as Levesque eventually did.

Loranger said the plaintiff submitted “a lot” of evidence supporting her claim of an unpleasant workplace over a five-year period, including changes of work assignments and rules, reduction of overtime, name-calling, unjustified “write-ups” and eventual demotion.

“At this point, she realized she could do nothing further to remain at the jail,” having complained numerous times about her work conditions. Loranger said.

“Lots of jobs, other than mine, are unpleasant,” Justice Ellen Gorman said. “Or is it intolerable conditions” that Levesque endured? she asked.

Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley suggested there has to be discrimination that led to the termination.

Loranger argued case law doesn’t require underlying discrimination.

Peter Marchesi, attorney for the county, told the court there are three reasons to deny Levesque’s appeal.

First, he said, the law doesn’t allow plaintiffs to claim constructive discharge without a “viable underlying claim” of illegal conduct such as retaliation or discrimination.

Levesque didn’t challenge the judgments against her on the discrimination and retaliation claims, “which leaves no foundation for a constructive discharge claim,” he said.

Also, most of the evidence that bolsters her claim of being forced to resign is irrelevant or based on hearsay.

The jury ruled against Levesque on her claim of retaliation. For that reason, her claim of constructive discharge has no support, he reasoned.

If that’s true, Saufley asked Marchesi, why would the trial judge have dismissed the constructive discharge claim while allowing the retaliation claim to go to trial?

Justice Jon D. Levy asked Marchesi whether the trial judge should have dismissed the constructive discharge claim or allowed it to go to the jury, along with the retaliation claim.

The high court took the appeal under advisement Tuesday and is not expected to rule on the case for months.

[email protected]