PORTLAND — A former clerk at the Oxford County Sheriff’s Office is suing Sheriff Christopher Wainwright, his chief deputy and the county after she said she was forced to resign for speaking out about unfair worker treatment.
Joan Kelly of Hartford filed a civil complaint in Oxford County Superior Court in August alleging she resigned from her position after her job description was changed and she was disciplined unfairly for going public with concerns about unequal treatment of employees and the cover-up of employee misconduct.
The defendants had the case transferred to federal court, where they filed a motion to dismiss the complaint “for failing to state plausible claims.”
In a 19-page complaint, Kelly described her experience during her brief time working as a clerk in the Sheriff’s Office, starting in April 2018.
“Joan is straightforward, honest, and forthright in expressing her opinions,” her complaint said.
As an Oxford County resident, Kelly “has been involved and active in promoting government transparency, accountability and better employee policy.”
At county meetings, Kelly would clock out of work and attend the public portion of the county commission meetings on her own time.
“Over the course of her employment, it became clear that Joan’s attendance of commissioners’ meetings and her willingness to address issues with the operation of the office, including with respect to the unequal treatment of employees, and ostensible cover-up of employee misconduct, concerned the sheriff,” according to court documents.
In the complaint, Kelly said: “On Dec. 6, 2019, after numerous attempts to have the sheriff attend to a pressing issue with a member of the public, to which he failed to attend, Joan inquired to the sheriff whether he ‘does anything.'”
According to the complaint, “The sheriff was very angry. He pointed to Joan and then next to himself as to beckon her. He raised his voice and said, ‘In my office, now!'”
Kelly asked that the chief deputy be present. The three talked about the subject that had upset her.
“The sheriff, without equivocation, indicated that he thought Joan was toxic and he was going to terminate her,” according to the complaint.
Kelly then went to the commissioners’ office to tell the administrative assistant what had happened.
On Dec. 9, 2019, Kelly went to work. Wainwright said he needed to see her in his office. She said she wanted a third party present. They waited for Chief Deputy James Urquhart.
In Wainwright’s office, he told Kelly “he was placing her on administrative leave and recommending she be terminated,” according to the complaint.
Before a disciplinary hearing with the Oxford County Commission, Kelly met with Urquhart on Jan. 13, 2020, where he “indicated that he did not believe the confrontation between Joan and the sheriff rose to the level a ‘one and done fireable offense.’ He also told Joan that when the sheriff inquired, the chief had told him, ‘I don’t think it’s there,’ with respect to a sufficient basis to terminate Joan,” according to the complaint.
Urquhart also indicated he thought she was being fired because of a “personality issue,” the complaint said.
He told her he and other male employees had had “similar confrontations” with Wainwright, but hadn’t been disciplined, according to the complaint.
“During the (disciplinary) hearing, at risk to Joan’s employment, both the chief and the sheriff provided defamatory testimony that directly contradicted representations the chief had made at the recorded Jan. 13, 2020, meeting,” according to the complaint.
The sheriff and chief “acknowledged that similar ‘insubordination’ was more acceptable and did not merit any discipline, while insubordination, as expressed by Joan, not only merited discipline, but termination.”
The complaint said, “While the commissioners agreed that Joan should be held to a different standard than her male colleagues, they ultimately found that her actions did not rise to the level of a ‘fireable’ offense and found that there was not just cause for her termination. Accordingly, they determined she would be reinstated in her position and return to work.”
Later, according to the complaint, “the sheriff sought to do what he was not able to do through the legal statutory process, by delaying and materially and adversely altering the terms of her employment, thereby constructively terminating Joan.”
Kelly was initially told she could return to work March 9, 2020.
At a March 19, 2020, meeting, Kelly was told she would be suspended for one week without pay and would be put on probation for six months.
A “performance improvement plan” provided to Kelly stressed the need for her to “understand that the sheriff and chief deputy are your supervisors and as such deserve your loyalty and support.”
In May, when she was scheduled to return to work, she was sent documents regarding her discipline and performance improvement plan that hadn’t been updated and contained information unrelated to her suspension, changed her job status and barred her from participating in public meetings, according to the complaint.
“On May 21, Joan — who was anxious and suffering from several substantial concerns about continuing to work in a sheriff’s office where her direct supervisor had lied under oath about a conversation he had with her in order to justify her termination, and where the sheriff made it clear he wanted her fired and planned to get rid of her no matter what — returned to work at the Sheriff’s Office with every intention of trying to give it her all at a job she loved and at which she was excellent,” the complaint said.
After meeting with the human resources person, the sheriff and chief deputy to discuss the terms of her return to work, Kelly resigned.
She “left the main office and went to her own office to collect her personal items. Understanding that she would not have any ability to recover from the disciplinary action, and that the sheriff fully intended to circumvent all procedures and process so as to enable himself to terminate her,” she notified the commission’s office that she was resigning, according to the complaint.
In her complaint, Kelly alleged sex discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act and claimed her treatment was a violation of the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act.
She also claimed her right to free speech under the First Amendment and rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution were violated.
Kelly also claims defamation by Wainwright and Urquhart.
She is seeking punitive damages.
In the motion to dismiss, the defendants wrote: “Plaintiff’s bare-bones allegations against the County defendants are too meager, vague and conclusory to meet the pleading standard to plausibly set forth a claim for relief as against those defendants. Plaintiff sets forth very few actual facts, as opposed to conclusory statements, to support her claims.”
They wrote that she voluntarily resigned from her job.
A judge in the case ordered last week that Kelly may take additional time to file her response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss her complaint.
Copy the Story LinkSend questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.