Opinion ID: 2318253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: appeal summary

Text: [¶ 3] The Town of Millinocket appeals and Mary Walsh cross-appeals from the judgment and order of the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Anderson, J. ) entered following a retrial at which the jury found that Walsh, the former Town Recreation Director, had engaged in activities protected by Maine's Whistleblowers' Protection Act, 26 M.R.S. 831-840 (2010), [1] when she reported to the Maine Department of Conservation unsafe conditions on Town-owned snowmobile trails, and that those protected activities were a substantial motivating cause for the Town's decision to eliminate her position. The jury awarded Walsh $30,000 in compensatory damages, and, on issues left for the court, the court awarded Walsh back pay of more than $60,000, as well as attorney fees and costs. [¶ 4] The Town argues that (1) it cannot be held liable on Walsh's claim because there is no dispute that the majority of the seven-person Town Council was not motivated by discriminatory animus when it voted to eliminate Walsh's position; and (2) the court's causation instruction was erroneous because it did not require the jury to find that Walsh's protected conduct was the substantial motivating factor for the votes of a majority of the Town Council. In her cross-appeal, Walsh contends that the court erred in (1) determining the amount of back pay to which she was entitled; (2) declining to order reinstatement to her position; and (3) refusing to award Walsh front pay until reinstatement to her former position was possible. We affirm the trial court's judgment.